The Effects of Run-of-River Hydroelectric Power Schemes on Fish and Invertebrate Community Composition in Temperate Streams and Rivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Run-of-river (ROR) hydroelectric power schemes are often presumed to be less environmentally-damaging than large-scale storage schemes. However, there are currently only a limited number of peer-reviewed studies on their physical and ecological impact. This presentation will summarise the findings from a policy secondment, funded by the UK’s Natural Environment Research Council and the Environment Agency of England, which investigated the impacts of ROR hydroelectric power schemes on fish and invertebrate communities in temperate streams and rivers, using Before-After, Control-Impact (BACI) study designs. The study made use of routine environmental surveillance data collected as part of long-term national and international monitoring programmes at systematically-selected ROR hydroelectric power schemes and systematically-selected paired control sites. Five metrics of invertebrate community composition and six area-normalised metrics of fish community composition were analysed using linear mixed effects models. The results are discussed with respect to impacts from other sources of power, and recommendations are made for best-practice study design for future freshwater community impact studies.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".