Isolating causal pathways between flow and fish in the regulated river hierarchy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unregulated river systems are organized in a hierarchy in which large-scale factors (i.e., landscape and segment scales) influence local habitats (i.e., reach, meso-, and microhabitat scales), and both differentially exert selective pressures on biota. Dams, however, create discontinua in these processes and change the hierarchical structure. We examined the relative roles of hydrology and other instream factors, within a hierarchical landscape context, in organizing fish communities in regulated and unregulated tributaries to the Upper Tennessee River, USA. We used multivariate regression trees to identify factors that partition fish assemblages based on trait similarities, irrespective of spatial scale. We then used classical path analysis and structural equation modeling to evaluate the most plausible hierarchical causal structure of specific trait-based community components, given the data. Both statistical approaches suggested that river regulation affects stream fishes through a variety of reach-scale variables, not always through hydrology itself. Although we observed different changes in flow, temperature, and biotic responses according to regulation types, the most predominant path in which dam regulation affected biota was via temperature alterations. Diversion dams had the strongest effects on fish assemblages. Diversion dams reduced flow magnitudes, leading to declines in fish richness but increased temperatures, leading to lower abundances in equilibrium species and nest guarders. Peaking and run-of-river dams increased flow variability, leading to lower abundances in nest-guarding fishes. Flow displayed direct relationships with biotic responses; however, results indicated that changes in temperature and substrate had equal, if not stronger, effects on fish assemblage composition. The strength and nature of relationships depended on whether flow metrics were standardized for river size. We suggest that restoration efforts in regulated rivers focus on improving flow conditions in conjunction with temperature and substrate restoration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".