Statistical Evaluation of Behavior and Population Dynamics Models Predicting Movement and Proportional Entrainment Loss of Adult Delta Smelt in the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been considerable debate about effects of entrainment of endangered Delta Smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) at water export facilities located in the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta. In this paper we use a behavior-driven movement model (BMM) to simulate the movement of adult Delta Smelt, which, in conjunction with a population dynamics model, estimates the proportion of the population that is lost to entrainment, i.e., proportional entrainment loss (PEL). Parameters of the population model are estimated by maximum likelihood by comparing predictions to data from Fall Midwater Trawl (FMWT) and Spring Kodiak Trawl (SKT) surveys, as well as to daily salvage estimates. Our objectives are to evaluate different movement behavior hypotheses, to rank estimates of PEL based on how well predictions fit the data, and to sharpen our understanding of the data to inform future research and monitoring decisions. We applied the modeling framework to data from water year 2002—a year when salvage was high—and tested 30 combinations of six behavior and five population dynamics models. More complex process and observation assumptions in the population model led to much improved fits in most cases, but did not appreciably influence PEL predictions, which were largely determined by movement predictions from the BMMs. Estimates of PEL varied considerably among behaviors (2% to 40%). The model with the highest predictive capability explained 98% of the variation in FMWT data across regions, 70% of the variation in SKT data across regions and surveys, and 28% and 43% of the daily variation in salvage at federal and state fish screening facilities, respectively. The PEL estimate from this model was 35%, more than double the original estimate from Kimmerer (2008) of 15%. While PEL estimates provided in this study should be considered preliminary, our framework for testing combined behavior-driven movement models and population dynamics models is an improvement compared to earlier efforts.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".