Do novel ecosystems follow predictable trajectories? Testing the trophic surge hypothesis in reservoirs using fish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hydroelectric reservoirs are novel ecosystems that provide a variety of important services. To manage these ecosystems and their fish populations effectively, we need to develop conceptual frameworks for predicting their short‐ and long‐term responses. To advance this goal, we revisited and tested the “trophic surge hypothesis, TSH.” The TSH has been widely cited in the literature, but has not been empirically tested across numerous reservoirs. The TSH suggests that fish populations should show a hump‐shaped pattern (i.e., the non‐equilibrium phase) after river impoundment. As such, we assembled 40 recruitment and 109 adult fish abundance time series from 19 species distributed across seven reservoirs from temperate and boreal regions, and applied curve fitting analyses and model selection. We found that the hump‐shaped pattern was the predominant pattern across individual time series, providing moderate support for the TSH. Fish recruitment increased substantially during reservoir filling and was followed by an increase in adult fish lagging 3–4 years behind. The non‐equilibrium phase was transient and lasted roughly eight years for recruits, whereas it could be much longer for adults. When time series were combined across regions and sites, the support for the TSH was weaker. However, we observed significant variability in the duration, timing, and magnitude of the surge across individual time series and found that the total flooded area was the most influential predictor to explain this variability. In conclusion, the TSH and related metrics can be a useful and general predictive framework to understand how fish populations may respond to impoundment. In particular, long‐term management recommendations could be short‐sighted if formulated before convincing evidence has emerged to show that the reservoir reached its new trophic equilibrium.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".