MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2941912002 · doi:10.1139/er-2019-0010

Reintroduction of fishes in Canada: a review of research progress for SARA-listed species

2019· review· en· W2941912002 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Karl A. Lamothe, D. Andrew R. Drake, Trevor E. Pitcher, Jeremy E. Broome, Alan J. Dextrase, Ashley Gillespie, Nicholas E. Mandrak, Mark S. Poesch, Scott M. Reid, Nathalie Vachon

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Reviews · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaThe Scarborough HospitalMinistry of Natural Resources and ForestryBedford Institute of OceanographyUniversity of WindsorUniversity of TorontoMinistère des Ressources naturelles et des ForêtsFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersFisheries and Oceans CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsThreatened speciesEcologyPopulationSubspeciesBiologyHabitatEndangered speciesEnvironmental resource managementSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fishes are among the most threatened taxa in Canada with over 70 species, subspecies, and (or) designatable units presently listed for protection under the Species at Risk Act (SARA). Protecting these species requires a diverse set of strategies based on the best-available data and information. One approach identified under SARA and in Canadian federal recovery strategies for improving the status of SARA-listed fishes is species reintroduction, which involves the release of individuals into areas from which they have been extirpated with the goal of re-establishing self-sustaining populations. The success of reintroduction relies on a comprehensive understanding of species ecology and life history, with considerations around population genetics and genomics. However, SARA-listed species are some of the most poorly known species in Canada due to their rarity and relative lack of research investment prior to the enactment of SARA. As a result, SARA-listed species have the most to lose if reintroduction activities are not carefully researched, planned, and executed. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to present an accessible summary on the state of reintroduction science for SARA-listed fishes in Canada with the hope of motivating future research to support reintroduction activities. We focus our review on 14 SARA-listed freshwater or anadromous fishes identified as candidates for reintroduction in federal recovery strategies. We follow the species-specific summaries with guidance on how basic research questions in population ecology, habitat science, and threat science provide a critical foundation for addressing knowledge gaps in reintroduction science. Subsequently, we identify the importance of genetic and genomic techniques for informing future research on the reintroduction of SARA-listed species. We conclude with recommendations for active, experimental approaches for moving reintroduction efforts forward to recover Canadian fishes.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.490
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations35
Published2019
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental ReviewsSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207