MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Kootenai River velocities, depth, and white sturgeon spawning site selection â a mystery unraveled?

2009· article· en· W2161120768 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
V. L. Paragamian, Richard R. McDonald, Gill Nelson, Gary J. Barton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Ichthyology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Army Corps of Engineers
KeywordsSturgeonSpawn (biology)FisheryHabitatPopulationAcipenserHydrology (agriculture)Endangered speciesLake sturgeonEnvironmental scienceEcologyGeologyBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Kootenai River white sturgeon Acipenser transmontanus population in Idaho, US and British Columbia (BC), Canada became recruitment limited shortly after Libby Dam became fully operational on the Kootenai River, Montana, USA in 1974. In the USA the species was listed under the Endangered Species Act in September of 1994. Kootenai River white sturgeon spawn within an 18-km reach in Idaho, river kilometer (rkm) 228.0–246.0. Each autumn and spring Kootenai River white sturgeon follow a ‘short two-step’ migration from the lower river and Kootenay Lake, BC, to staging reaches downstream of Bonners Ferry, Idaho. Initially, augmented spring flows for white sturgeon spawning were thought to be sufficient to recover the population. Spring discharge mitigation enhanced white sturgeon spawning but a series of research investigations determined that the white sturgeon were spawning over unsuitable incubation and rearing habitat (sand) and that survival of eggs and larvae was negligible. It was not known whether post-Libby Dam management had changed the habitat or if the white sturgeon were not returning to more suitable spawning substrates farther upstream. Fisheries and hydrology researchers made a team effort to determine if the spawning habitat had been changed by Libby Dam operations. Researchers modeled and compared velocities, sediment transport, and bathymetry with post-Libby Dam white sturgeon egg collection locations. Substrate coring studies confirmed cobbles and gravel substrates in most of the spawning locations but that they were buried under a meter or more of post-Libby Dam sediment. Analysis suggested that Kootenai River white sturgeon spawn in areas of highest available velocity and depths over a range of flows. Regardless of the discharge, the locations of accelerating velocities and maximum depth do not change and spawning locations remain consistent. Kootenai River white sturgeon are likely spawning in the same locations as pre-dam, but post-Libby Dam water management has reduced velocities and shear stress, thus sediment is now covering the cobbles and gravels. Although higher discharges will likely provide more suitable spawning and rearing conditions, this would be socially and politically unacceptable because it would bring the river elevation to or in excess of 537.66 m, which is flood stage. Thus, support should be given to habitat modifications incorporated into a management plan to restore suitable habitat and ensure better survival of eggs and larvae.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied IchthyologySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207