Interaction of sauger <i>Sander canadensis</i> and walleye <i>Sander vitreus</i> in a large, shallow northern river
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to: (1) determine the relative abundance of sauger Sander canadensis and walleye S. vitreus within the Rainy River using a standardized index netting technique; (2) assess the life-history characteristics of the two species in a northern river; (3) examine the spatial distribution of the two species; (4) assess year-class synchrony. At a larger scale, relative abundance of S. canadensis and S. vitreus were similar among sections of the river. However, at a finer scale, S. canadensis were the dominant species over more area (24%) of the river than S. vitreus (12%). Life-history traits for both species were within the range reported for North American. Mortality rates were similar, suggesting that anglers were not affecting one species more than the other. Year-class strengths were not synchronous between S. canadensis and S. vitreus (r = 0.07). There was evidence of S. canadensis potentially outcompeting S. vitreus with a strong year class of S. canadensis followed by a very weak class of S. vitreus. Additionally, S. canadensis were larger than S. vitreus in most sections of the river when adjusted for mean size. However, the potential interspecific competition was not to the exclusion of S. vitreus. Turbidity was probably the factor that enable S. canadensis to survive sympatrically with S. vitreus given their inability to segregate by depth within the river.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".