Multidecadal responses of native and introduced fishes to natural and altered flow regimes in the American Southwest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both theory and empirical evidence identify flow regime as a primary factor driving the structure of riverine fish communities and spatial patterns of species invasions. We used long-term fish community monitoring data to evaluate hypothesized responses to interannual variability in flow attributes across seven rivers in the American Southwest. We asked the following three questions: (1) Can annual variation in species abundances be explained by attributes that represent flow seasonality, variability, and consistency? (2) Can species responses be predicted based on their origin (native versus nonnative) or life-history strategy? and (3) Are species responses to variation in specific flow attributes consistent across river systems with modified and natural flow regimes? We found that species responses to flow attributes were best predicted by origin, suggesting responses to flows are associated with adaptations to regional hydrologic variability. Additionally, most species responded negatively to increased flow variability, particularly in systems with an altered flow regime. Our findings demonstrate site- and taxa-specific responses to flows that can guide conservation of fishes in lotic systems of the American Southwest and elsewhere.
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 | 0.000 | 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".