MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092586428 · doi:10.1002/rra.3731

Observations regarding Lake Sturgeon spawning below a hydroelectric generating station on a large river based on egg deposition studies

2020· article· en· W3092586428 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mark A. Gillespie, C. A. McDougall, Patrick A. Nelson, Thomas L. Sutton, Donald S. MacDonell

Bibliographic record

VenueRiver Research and Applications · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpillwayLake sturgeonHydroelectricitySturgeonAcipenserHabitatEnvironmental scienceFisheryDeposition (geology)Hydrology (agriculture)WeirSubstrate (aquarium)Fish <Actinopterygii>EcologyGeographyBiologyGeologySedimentGeomorphologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Spawning behaviour of the Lake Sturgeon ( Acipenser fulvescens ) in large rivers is poorly understood, complicating the approach to fish‐friendly hydroelectric design and mitigation. In 2006, dam safety concerns prompted the need to modernize the spillway infrastructure of the 100‐year old Pointe du Bois Generating Station on the Winnipeg River, Manitoba. The associated regulatory process provided an opportunity to study Lake Sturgeon spawning in a location characterized by water depths &gt;5 m, high velocities, and hydraulic instability. Over six spawning periods (2007–2012), a wide range of flow conditions occurred, and spawning was documented using egg mats in both the powerhouse tailrace and downstream of the spillway rapids. Herein, we consider “…. the preferential utilization by sturgeon of certain ranges of the physical variables studied, but within habitats considered favourable for the reproduction of the species ” conclusion forwarded by La Haye et al. as our working hypothesis. Overall, 27,362 of 30,085 (90.1%) Lake Sturgeon eggs were captured during the primary spawning intervals, defined based on 6‐day annual periods encompassing the date of peak deposition. Of the 2,200 mats retrieved, 74.4% captured 0 eggs, 12.0% captured 1–5 eggs, 5.2% captured 6–25 eggs, 6.1% captured 26–99 eggs, and just 2.2% captured ≥100 eggs (high‐yield). Data were examined in relation to status‐quo habitat variables (depth, velocity, and substrate), as well as two additional variables hypothesized to have predictive power: distance from physical and/or energetic barriers and hydraulic complexity. Distance‐based analyses revealed upstream to downstream redistribution of eggs via flow. Spawning (as inferred based on high‐yield mats) was spatially discrete during each spawning period as opposed to well‐distributed among habitats broadly considered to be suitable for the species. We suggest that the current‐edges located proximal to physical and/or energetic barriers (i.e., at the upstream extent of usable habitat) drive Lake Sturgeon spawning site selection in large rivers, and advise caution prior to making fine‐scale inferences when only small quantities of Lake Sturgeon eggs are captured.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRiver Research and ApplicationsSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207