Management Perspectives on Coaster Brook Trout Rehabilitation in the Lake Superior Basin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Coaster brook trout are a migratory form of brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis that spend part of their lives in the Great Lakes. Over the last century the abundance of coaster brook trout in Lake Superior has declined dramatically, and only remnant stocks remain. Recently, the rehabilitation of coaster brook trout in Lake Superior has become a goal of fish management agencies. The specific goal agreed upon by all of the agencies involved is to maintain widely distributed, self-sustaining populations in as many of the historical habitats as practical. We discuss realistic expectations for rehabilitation and emphasize the need for management agencies, academia, and angling organizations to work cooperatively. We first present a brief history of coaster brook trout in Lake Superior, then discuss habitat requirements and protection, the regulations required for rehabilitation, stocking, species interactions, and the role that human dimensions play in rehabilitation. The management issues that must be addressed are implementation of a basinwide survey to identify remnant stocks and critical habitat, restrictive harvest regulations, watershed rehabilitation, critical biological review, and the formulation of expectations before experimental stocking programs are initiated, along with coordinated, basinwide information sharing and cooperative management among agencies similar to that undertaken during the rehabilitation of lake trout Salvelinus namaycush in Lake Superior. Future research needs include basic coaster biology and life history, habitat use in streams and the lake, interaction with other species in the Lake Superior fish community, and interaction between stream-resident and coaster brook trout. Successful rehabilitation will require a shift from a harvest fishery to one with minimal or no harvest of coaster brook trout in the Lake Superior basin. Coaster brook trout rehabilitation will take time and will proceed at different rates at different locations, depending on the presence of remnant stocks, quality of habitat, angling pressure, and political will.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".