Movement of sturgeons (<i>Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus</i>and<i>A. fulvescens</i>) in the St. Lawrence Estuary: A 35‐year tagging study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Movement of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus) and lake sturgeon (A. fulvescens) in the St. Lawrence Estuary (Québec, Canada) are not fully understood. To assess the movement extent of both species, a mark–recapture study was conducted in collaboration with commercial fishermen operating in the St. Lawrence Estuary. Between 1981 and 2015, 3,367 Atlantic sturgeon (fork length 21.8–199.5 cm) and 3,180 lake sturgeon (fork length 17.8–190.8 cm) were tagged and released. Of these, 673 Atlantic sturgeon and 42 lake sturgeon were recaptured. The maximum distances traveled between capture and recapture locations were 1,307 km for Atlantic sturgeon (8 years after initial capture) and 252 km for lake sturgeon (less than 1 year after initial capture). Statistical analyses identified differences in the dispersal distance of both species as revealed by a first component characterized by individuals with short dispersal distances (98% and <35 km for Atlantic sturgeon; 58% and <1 km for lake sturgeon) and a second component characterized by individuals with longer dispersal distances (2% and >600 km for Atlantic sturgeon; 42% and >190 km for lake sturgeon). We suggest that the short dispersal distances detected in the vast majority of Atlantic sturgeon recaptures likely reflect strong site fidelity, highlighting the importance of the St. Lawrence Estuary as a preferred habitat for juveniles and subadults. Although recaptures were low for lake sturgeon because this species is only marginally targeted by commercial fishermen in the St. Lawrence Estuary, our results also showed that this species uses estuarine habitats and that half of the population seems to exhibit strong site fidelity (67% of individuals were recaptured within 2 km).
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".