Longitudinal variation in community structure of floodplain fishes along two rivers of the southeastern USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many studies have examined whether longitudinal variation exists in fish communities within stream channels. Yet despite the acknowledged importance of adjacent floodplain ecosystems, no study has investigated longitudinal variation in fish communities in floodplain wetlands. We conducted a study to determine if distinct fish communities exist between upper and lower river floodplains. We predicted that floodplains in the upper portions of a watershed will be dominated by opportunistic riverine fish. In contrast, floodplains farther downstream in the watershed will primarily consist of obligate floodplain fishes. We sampled fishes at 21 floodplain sites along the lengths of the Oconee–Altamaha and Broad–Savannah river systems of Georgia, USA, during the 2008 and 2009 flood seasons. A modified mark–recapture method was utilized to estimate probabilities of species detection and occupancy. Ordination and analysis of similarity using species site occupancy estimates identified two unique communities related to floodplain position, and indicator species analysis supported our hypothesis of community distinction based on life history traits. Water resource managers should consider how flood pulse character influences fish communities when regulating flow regimes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".