Modèles de croissance chez la Perche (P. fluviatilis) dans le retenue de Charpal (Lozère, France)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fish sampling operations (in 1999 and 2000) showed that the Perch had a bimodal size distribution inside the population where small individuals (Lt < 225 mm) with a slow growth cohabited with larger ones (Lt < 325 mm) having a faster growth. Back-calculations from opercular bones measurements of large specimens hatched between 1988 and 1994 showed that their growth had accelerated in 1993-94. They kept their size advantage the following years. The explanation is that the refilling of the reservoir in 1993-94 may have improved consequently the productivity of the lake that benefited to some of the fish that had remained in the site during the draining period. These larger individuals acquired a piscivorous regimen and the predation pressure their exerted on the smaller and/or younger fish could explain the heterogeneity of the size distribution among the Perch population. / Des échantillonnages systématiques de la communauté ichtyologique de la retenue de Charpal réalisés en 1999 et en 2000 ont permis de déceler une structure bimodale très nette et stable chez la population de perche. Des petites perches (< 225 mm) à croissance lente cohabitent avec d'autres de grande taille (> 325 mm) à forte croissance. Des rétrocalculs effectués sur les os operculaires des grandes perches nées entre 1988 et 1994 montrent qu'elles ont toutes bénéficié d'une brusque accélération de leur croissance en 1993 et en 1994, années qui ont suivi la remise en eau du réservoir après la dernière vidange. La croissance des perches de grande taille est demeurée par la suite nettement supérieure à celle des petites. La plus forte productivité du milieu suite à la remise en eau pourrait être responsable des accroissements marqués notés en 1993 et en 1994. La forte abondance relative actuelle de la cohorte de 1994 pourrait aussi en dépendre. Devenues par la suite piscivores, les perches des cohortes précédant la vidange pourraient ainsi avoir exercé une compétition alimentaire et une pression de prédation importantes aux dépens des suivantes, ce qui expliquerait cette structure particulière de population.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".