The fish community of Hamilton Harbour, Lake Ontario: Status, stressors, and remediation over 25 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hamilton Harbour is a large (21 km2) protected harbour located at the western end of Lake Ontario that was designated as an Area of Concern in 1985 by the International Joint Commission. As part of the designation, the fish community was deemed “impaired.” One of the long-term goals of the Hamilton Harbour Remedial Action Plan is to rehabilitate the fishery to a state, at least in part, to what it was prior to the degrading effects of industrial and municipal pollution, habitat loss, and invasive species. Since the Area of Concern designation, the nearshore fish community has been monitored regularly via a federal boat electrofishing program (1988–2013) and more recently, by a trap net program (2006–2012). During the study period, the harbour underwent significant physical and biological change which was related to both lake-wide (e.g. Dreissenids) and localized harbour events (e.g. habitat restoration). The fish community was assessed temporally using two indices of ecosystem health, the Great Lakes Index of Biotic Integrity and Proportion of Piscivore Biomass, and species-specific catch trends at unaltered sites or sites modified by habitat restoration. Early on, the fish community was dominated by tolerant species characteristic of degraded, eutrophic environments and piscivore abundance was low. The fish community responded positively to ecosystem actions during the first decade that improved water quality, increased physical habitat and reduced invasive species, but further progress was confounded by the interactions with other factors in the last decade that included new invasive species and a decline in water quality. Fish community assessments in the last decade, using both the indices found that the fish community was still impaired and dominated by non-native and pollution tolerant species. The Index of Biotic Integrity was a suitable indicator of ecosystem health strengthened by a consistent assessment with the Proportion of Piscivore Biomass index. A science based refinement of the existing Index in the future would benefit the ability to assess nearshore fish assemblages in the context of conservation goals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".