Use of seasonal freshwater wetlands by fishes in a temperate river floodplain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the use of freshwater wetland restoration and enhancement projects (i.e. non‐estuarine wetlands subject to seasonal drying) by fish populations. To quantify fish use of freshwater emergent wetlands and assess the effect of wetland enhancement (i.e. addition of water control structures), two enhanced and two unenhanced emergent wetlands were compared, as well as two oxbow habitats within the Chehalis River floodplain. Eighteen fish species were captured using fyke nets and emigrant traps from January to the beginning of June, with the most abundant being three‐spined stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus and Olympic mudminnow Novumbra hubbsi. Coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch was the dominant salmonid at all sites. Enhanced wetlands, with their extended hydroperiods, had significantly higher abundances of yearling coho salmon than unenhanced wetlands. Both enhanced and unenhanced emergent wetlands yielded higher abundances of non‐game native fishes than oxbow habitats. Oxbow habitats, however, were dominated by coho salmon. Fish survival in the wetland habitats was dependent on emigration to the river before dissolved oxygen concentrations decreased and wetlands became isolated and stranding occurred. This study suggests that wetland enhancement projects with an outlet to the river channel appear to provide fishes with important temporary habitats if they have the opportunity to leave the wetland as dissolved oxygen levels deteriorate.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".