Evidence of fish spillover from freshwater protected areas in lakes of eastern Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Research has identified numerous conservation benefits attributed to the use of marine protected areas (MPAs), yet comparatively less is known about the effectiveness of freshwater protected areas (FPAs). This study assessed multiple long‐standing (>70 years active) intra‐lake FPAs in three lakes in eastern Ontario, Canada, to evaluate their potential conservation benefits. These FPAs were intended initially to protect exploited populations of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides (Lacépède, 1802)), but since their establishment no empirical data have been collected to evaluate the effectiveness of FPAs for protecting bass or the broader fish community. A comparative biological census of fish species abundance, biomass and species richness was conducted using snorkelling surveys within FPAs, along the bordering transition zones, and in more distant non‐protected areas of the lake that had similar habitats to the FPAs. In general, the FPAs yielded benefits that were most obvious (in terms of abundance and biomass) for the focal protected species (i.e. largemouth bass) as well as several shiner species. Largemouth bass and shiner abundance and biomass were highest in the FPA, lowest in the distant non‐protected areas, and intermediate in the transition zone. Species richness was also highest in the FPAs in two of the three lakes. Collectively, these results support the use of FPAs as a viable and effective conservation strategy that extends beyond simply limiting the exploitation of a target species. Beyond the benefits afforded to fish within the FPA, evidence of spillover in adjacent areas was also observed, which is promising. Additional research is needed on the effectiveness of FPAs in a variety of regions and water‐body types facing various threats in an effort to understand when, where and how to best use FPAs to benefit aquatic biodiversity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".