An Evaluation of Goldeye Life History Characteristics in Two Kansas Reservoirs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Goldeye Hiodon alosoides are native through much of Canada and the Mississippi River drainage in the United States. Life history characteristics have been described for several commercially important populations in northern portions of their range, but there is a paucity of information available for more southernly populations. Milford and Lovewell Reservoirs are in the Kansas River basin and harbor the only two lentic Goldeye populations in Kansas. Further, anecdotal observations suggest declining population abundance. We sought to examine temporal trends in relative abundance and describe current size structure, body condition, and population dynamics of these two remnant populations. Both populations had decreasing relative abundance over the previous 24-y period, although decreases in the Lovewell population were most profound. In Milford Reservoir, the median total length of sampled Goldeye was 268 mm (minimum = 235 mm; maximum = 431 mm). The estimated maximum observed age for Goldeye was 8; however, age-1 Goldeye were the most abundant year-class that we collected, accounting for 80% of sampled fish. We fit a von Bertalanffy growth model to back-calculated length at annulus formation with parameter estimates of L∞ = 402 mm, K = 0.93, and t0 = 0.29. We collected two individuals at Lovewell Reservoir; therefore, no analyses were conducted. Overall, this study provides cursory knowledge of two remnant Goldeye populations in Kansas. These results can be applied to promote better understanding of their ecological role in these reservoirs and other midwestern impoundments with remnant populations.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".