MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094201529 · doi:10.1002/aqc.3431

Spawning habitat suitability for coastal cutthroat trout: Microhabitat and mesohabitat

2020· article· en· W3094201529 on OpenAlexaff
Steven N. Boessow, Hal A. Beecher, Kiza K. Gates

Bibliographic record

VenueAquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsOptech (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHabitatRiffleOncorhynchusTroutEnvironmental scienceSubstrate (aquarium)Channel (broadcasting)FisheryHydrology (agriculture)Froude numberEcologyFlow (mathematics)GeologyBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The conservation of aquatic species with complex life histories requires the protection of habitat for each life stage. Coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii clarkii) exhibit both mobile and sessile stages and are of conservation concern in north‐western North America. Models that predict how habitat changes with flow can inform water management for the species but rely on habitat descriptors that change with flow and are not suited to sessile life stages. Spawning and incubation habitat availability and use for coastal cutthroat trout were assessed in mesohabitats and microhabitats. Primary channel units were tallied, dimensions were measured, redds were counted, and redd locations within channel units were measured. Primary channel units were subdivided based on relative residual depth (RRD, bed elevation in relation to maximum pool depth) and hydraulic control (HC, the lowest point on the highest ridge across the riffle that controls the water surface elevation in the upstream pool). Habitat suitability was calculated for depth (D), velocity (V), Froude number (Fr), substrate (S), RRD, and channel units. Redds in riffles and pools were close to hydraulic controls; suitability decreased upstream in pools and downstream in riffles. Maximum suitability values were: 21–24 cm for D, 0.05–0.10 for RRD, 61–64 cm s−1 for V, >0.80 for Fr, and 1.3 to <3.8 cm for S. Channel units, RRDs, and microhabitat better identified spawning habitat than microhabitat alone. The results suggest that RRD and stage of zero flow are good indicators of habitat suitability for spawning through fry emergence and could be adapted for use with other species. This work generates criteria for delineating flow‐independent channel units that can be used to set more protective instream flows, prioritize the acquisition of instream water or conservation easements to protect critical habitat, and inform restoration projects to optimize habitat availability.

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)0.000
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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