Hydropower Dam Development and Fish Biodiversity in the Mekong River Basin: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last few decades, considerable concern has been expressed about the threat of Mekong River Basin hydropower dams to a range of important freshwater riverine fisheries, particularly for fish that seasonally migrate long distances. However, much less attention has been given to the threat of hydropower dams to fish biodiversity in the high-diversity Mekong River Basin, the focus of this paper. Through reviewing the existing state of knowledge regarding Mekong River Basin fish biodiversity, and threats to it, we argue that even though no species are definitively known to have been extirpated from the Mekong River Basin to date, hydropower dam development and various other developments nevertheless pose a serious threat to fish biodiversity. Indeed, dams typically significantly block fish migrations and fish larvae distribution, cause river fragmentation, fundamentally alter river hydrology, and change water quality, all factors that have the potential to intersect with each other and lead to significant species extirpation and extinction, or in some cases, functional extinction, when a small population remains but the important larger population is lost permanently. The circumstances are further exacerbated by the lag time between impact and when that impact becomes evident, cumulative impacts, a lack of consistent data collection, including the collection of base-line data, and insufficient post-project research related to biodiversity. We contend that much more could and should be done to ensure that the Mekong River basin’s exceptional fish biodiversity is not variously diminished and destroyed during the coming years.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".