MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2289758672 · doi:10.1098/rsif.2015.0435

Connectivity, passability and heterogeneity interact to determine fish population persistence in river networks

2015· article· en· W2289758672 on OpenAlexaff
Yasmine Samia, Frithjof Lutscher, Alan Hastings

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of The Royal Society Interface · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationPopulation growthPopulation dynamics of fisheriesPersistence (discontinuity)Extinction (optical mineralogy)ObstacleSpatial heterogeneityPopulation declineEcologyWatershedIndex (typography)Vital ratesBiologyGeographyFish <Actinopterygii>HabitatDemographyFisheryComputer scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The movement of fish in watersheds is frequently inhibited by human-made migration barriers such as dams or culverts. The resulting lack of connectivity of spatial subpopulations is often cited as a cause for observed population decline. We formulate a matrix model for a spatially distributed fish population in a watershed, and we investigate how location and other characteristics of a single movement barrier impact the asymptotic growth rate of the population. We find that while population growth rate often decreases with the introduction of a movement obstacle, it may also increase due to a 'retention effect'. Furthermore, obstacle mortality greatly affects population growth rate. In practice, different connectivity indices are used to predict population effects of migration barriers, but the relation of these indices to population growth rates in demographic models is often unclear. When comparing our results with the dentritic connectivity index, we see that the index captures neither the retention effect nor the influences of obstacle mortality. We argue that structural indices cannot entirely replace more detailed demographic models to understand questions of persistence and extinction. We advocate the development of novel functional indices and characteristics.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.235

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations28
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of The Royal Society InterfaceSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207