MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3001130394 · doi:10.1002/aqc.3274

Abiotic and biotic associations between the round goby<scp><i>Neogobius melanostomus</i></scp>and tubenose goby<scp><i>Proterorhinus marmoratus</i></scp>with the endangered northern madtom<scp><i>Noturus stigmosus</i></scp>in Canada

2020· article· en· W3001130394 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Karl A. Lamothe, Jacob P. Ziegler, Robin Gáspárdy, Jason Barnucz, D. Andrew R. Drake

Bibliographic record

VenueAquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersFisheries and Oceans CanadaEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
KeywordsRound gobyNeogobiusFisheryEndangered speciesOccupancyTrawlingHabitatEcologyBiologyGobyGeographyInvasive speciesFishingFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Quantifying habitat associations and threats to the persistence of imperilled species is a fundamental step for initiating species recovery efforts, but the traits associated with species imperillment (e.g. rarity and vulnerability to stressors) also limit the ability to empirically inform recovery strategies. Novel sampling designs and modelling approaches are therefore needed to quantitatively assess habitat associations and the threats to species persistence. To improve the understanding of habitat associations and threats for one of the rarest endangered freshwater fish species in Canada, northern madtom (Noturus stigmosus), two‐species occupancy models were developed with two invasive gobies: round goby (Neogobius melanostomus) and tubenose goby (Proterorhinus marmoratus). Models were parameterized with data from a multi‐year benthic trawling survey of two large Great Lakes tributaries in southern Ontario, Canada, and subsequently used to evaluate the need for reducing measurement error with future sampling efforts. The probability of detecting northern madtom in the St. Clair (0.163) and Thames (0.194) rivers was low compared with round goby (St. Clair, 0.827; Thames, 0.833) and tubenose goby (St. Clair, 0.297). The best occupancy models indicated a negative association between northern madtom and round goby in the St. Clair River and the importance of gravel substrate for northern madtom. Up to 16 repeated non‐detections using benthic trawls are needed to be 95% confident that northern madtom is absent at a site, indicating that current sampling approaches are likely inadequate. Despite low detection probabilities, intensive trawling surveys combined with the two‐species occupancy modelling framework provided vital information for describing habitat associations for northern madtom and identified a significant negative association with round goby. Nonetheless, alternative sampling methods to improve the detection probability of northern madtom would allow a more robust evaluation of habitat associations and would provide more information on the negative association with round goby.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.165 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater EcosystemsSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207