Empirical characterization factors assessing the effects of hydroelectricity on fish richness across three large biomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hydroelectricity is often presented as a clean, reliable, and renewable energy source, but is also recognized for its potential impacts on aquatic ecosystem biodiversity. We used empirical data on change in fish species richness following impoundment to develop Characterisation Factors (CF) and Impact Scores (IS) for hydroelectricity production for use in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). We used data collected on 89 sampling stations (63 upstream and 26 downstream of a dam) belonging to 27 reservoirs from three biomes (boreal, temperate and tropical). Overall, the impact of hydroelectricity production on fish species richness was significant in the tropics, of smaller amplitude in temperate and minimal in boreal biome, stressing for the need of regionalisation. The impact of hydroelectricity production was also quite consistent across scales ( i.e. , same directionality and statistical significance across sampling stations, reservoirs and biomes) but was sensitive to the duration of the study ( i.e. , the period over which data have been collected after impoundment), highlighting the need for a clear understanding of transient situations before reaching steady states. Our CFs and ISs contribute to fill a gap to assist decision makers using LCA to evaluate alternative technologies, such as hydropower, to decarbonize the worldwide economy. Highlights This paper is the first to develop global and empirically based characterization factors of the impact of hydroelectricity production on aquatic ecosystems biodiversity, to be used in LCA; The impact of hydroelectricity production on fish species richness was significant in the tropics, of smaller amplitude in temperate and minimal in boreal biome; The impact of hydroelectricity production on fish richness was consistent across scales - same directionality and statistical significance across sampling stations, reservoirs and biomes; The impact of hydroelectricity production on fish richness was sensitive to the duration of the study, highlighting the need for a clear understanding of transient situations before reaching steady states in LCA.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".