Local habitat features explain the distribution of the imperiled grass pickerel (<i>Esox americanus vermiculatus</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated patterns of grass pickerel (Esox americanus vermiculatus Lesueur, 1846) distribution in three watersheds in Ontario, Canada, using site- and reach-scale habitat variables and fish community assemblage data to determine why this species occurs sporadically throughout watersheds despite abundant seemingly suitable, but unoccupied, habitat. Habitat and fish community data were collected using conventional field sampling methods, and reach-scale habitat data were compiled with the aid of a geographic information system. We found that occupied sites had lower baseflow indices and reach slopes but higher conductivity and agricultural land uses than unoccupied sites. More grass pickerel were detected when conductivity, channel cover, and wetlands in the floodplain were highest and bank slopes lowest; this is consistent with habitat preferences described elsewhere in its range. Habitat features at the site scale appeared more important than reach-scale features suggesting that grass pickerel may be using small habitat patches. This study identifies habitat elements important to grass pickerel and offers insights into management implications.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".