MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221004759 · doi:10.1093/conphys/coac021

Wetland fishes avoid a carbon dioxide deterrent deployed in the field

2022· article· en· W4221004759 on OpenAlexaffabout
Paul A. Bzonek, N. E. Mandrak

Bibliographic record

VenueConservation Physiology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicOcean Acidification Effects and Responses
Canadian institutionsCanada Research ChairsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWetlandBiologyCarbon dioxideEcologyFisheryEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Biological invasions are poorly controlled and contribute to the loss of ecosystem services and function. Altered watershed connectivity contributes to aquatic invasions, but such hydrologic connections have become important for human transport. Carbon dioxide (CO2) deterrents have been proposed to control the range expansion of invasive fishes, particularly through altered hydrologic connections, without impeding human transport. However, the effectiveness of CO2 deterrents needs to be further evaluated in the field, where fishes are situated in their natural environment and logistical challenges are present. We deployed a proof-of-concept CO2 deterrent within a trap-and-sort fishway in Cootes Paradise, Ontario, Canada, to determine the avoidance responses of fishes attempting to disperse into a wetland. We aimed to describe deterrent efficiency for our target species, common carp, and for native fishes dispersing into the wetland. Our inexpensive inline CO2 deterrent was deployed quickly and rapidly produced a CO2 plume of 60 mg/l. Over 2000 fishes, representing 13 species, were captured between 23 May and 8 July 2019. A generalized linear model determined that the catch rates of our target species, common carp (n = 1662), decreased significantly during deterrent activation, with catch rates falling from 2.56 to 0.26 individuals per hour. Aggregated catch rates for low-abundance species (n < 150 individuals per species) also decreased, while catch rates for non-target brown bullhead (n = 294) increased. Species did not express a phylogenetic signal in avoidance responses. These results indicate that CO2 deterrents produce a robust common carp avoidance response in the field. This pilot study deployed an inexpensive and rapidly operating deterrent, but to be a reliable management tool, permanent deterrents would need to produce a more concentrated CO2 plume with greater infrastructural support.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.209 · 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.

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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConservation PhysiologySame topicOcean Acidification Effects and ResponsesFrench-language works237,207