Impact of in-stream restoration structures on salmonid abundance and biomass: an updated meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Owing to declines in salmonid populations, in-stream restoration structures have been used for over 80 years to increase abundance of fish. However, the relative effectiveness of these structures remains unclear for some species or regions, partly due to contrasting conclusions from two previous meta-analyses. To update and reconcile these previous analyses, we conducted a meta-analysis using data available from 1969 to 2019 to estimate the effect of in-stream structures on salmonid abundance (number and density) and biomass. Data from 100 stream restoration projects showed a significant increase in salmonid abundance (effect size 0.636) and biomass (0.621), consistent with previous reviews and studies, and a stronger effect was found in adults than in juvenile fish. Despite a shift towards using more natural structures (wood and boulders) since the 1990s, structures have not become more effective. However, most projects monitor for less than 5 years, which may be insufficient time in some systems for channel morphology to adjust and population changes to be apparent. Process-based techniques, which give more space for the river, allow more long-term, self-sustaining restoration.
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 | 0.019 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".