Effectiveness of terrestrial protected areas for conservation of lake fish communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Freshwater protected areas are rare even though freshwater ecosystems are among the most imperiled in the world. Conservation actions within terrestrial protected areas (TPAs) such as development or resource extraction regulations may spill over to benefit freshwater ecosystems within their boundaries. Using data from 175 lakes across Ontario, Canada, we compared common indicators of fish-assemblage status (i.e., species richness, Shannon diversity index, catch per unit effort, and normalized-length size spectrum slopes) to evaluate whether TPAs benefit lake fish assemblages. Nearest neighbor cluster analysis was used to generate pairs of lakes: inside versus outside, inside versus bordering, and bordering versus outside TPAs based on lake characteristics. The diversity and abundance indicators did not differ significantly across comparisons, but normalized-length size spectrum slopes (NLSS) were significantly steeper in lakes outside parks. The latter indicated assemblage differences (greater abundances of small-bodied species) and less-efficient energy transfer through the trophic levels of assemblages outside parks. Although not significantly different, pollution- and turbidity-tolerant species were more abundant outside parks, whereas 3 of the 4 pollution-intolerant species were more abundant within parks. Twenty-one percent of the difference in slopes was related to higher total dissolved solids concentrations and angling pressure. Our results support the hypothesis that TPAs benefit lake fish assemblages and suggest that NLSS slopes are informative indicators for aquatic protected area evaluations because they represent compositional and functional aspects of communities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".