MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2754461079 · doi:10.1080/00028487.2017.1353548

Habitat Quantity Required to Support Self‐Sustaining Lake Sturgeon Populations: an Alternative Hypothesis

2017· article· en· W2754461079 on OpenAlexafffundabout
C. A. McDougall, Patrick A. Nelson, Don MacDonald, Darryl W. Kroeker, K. Kansas, Cameron C. Barth, Donald S. MacDonell

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the American Fisheries Society · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Manitoba
FundersWisconsin Department of Natural ResourcesManitoba HydroMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsLake sturgeonAcipenserEcologyCritical habitatHabitatPopulationSpawn (biology)SturgeonFisheryFish migrationStockingWoodland caribouBiologyGeographyEndangered speciesFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Citing the capacity of anadromous sturgeon species to undertake lengthy spawning migrations, Auer (1996) hypothesized that a minimum of 250–300 km of barrier‐free lake and river habitat might be required to support self‐sustaining populations of Lake SturgeonAcipenser fulvescens. Twenty years later, the biological understanding of this potamodromous species has improved considerably, but there has been minimal effort to reconcile the barrier‐free hypothesis with the persistence of Lake Sturgeon populations in impounded habitats and improve the understanding of what constitutes a functional population‐level habitat unit for this species of conservation concern. Herein, POPAN mark–recapture models and sequential length‐frequency histograms were used to examine contemporary Lake Sturgeon abundance and population trajectories in three small reaches (230, 50, and 10 river kilometers [rkm]) of the Nelson and Winnipeg rivers (Manitoba), developed for hydroelectric power generation. Approximately two decades after harvest closures, results indicate that population recovery is occurring in all three reaches examined. Mechanisms other than in situ reproduction or recruitment (i.e., stocking and immigration) for increasing abundance are confidently discounted. Based on these results and other observations of contemporary persistence of Lake Sturgeon populations in impounded environments as well as recent genetic observations indicative of historical population structuring along the flow axes of naturally fragmented Boreal Shield rivers, it is contended that the barrier‐free hypothesis should no longer be cited as a “rule of thumb” with regard to the habitat quantity required to support self‐sustaining Lake Sturgeon populations. Rather, the concept of an uninterrupted “spawn–drift–settle–establish” habitat sequence as the cornerstone of a functional population‐level habitat unit may have broader relevance to species recovery initiatives and management. Given appropriate geomorphologic and hydraulic conditions, Lake Sturgeon populations can thrive—and in Boreal Shield rivers likely have for thousands of years—in lake, river, or impoundment sections as small as 10 rkm.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations22
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the American Fisheries SocietySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207