Factors influencing the home range of freshwater fishes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Initial investigations of home range for freshwater fish noted that it scaled allometrically, with additional studies having linked home range to variations in water body size. Here, we revisit the analysis of factors influencing freshwater fish home range sizes using an expanded dataset incorporating more recent telemetry data and a meta‐analysis approach to evaluate the influence of fish length, water body size, trophic guild and latitude on the home range size of fishes in lotic and lentic systems. With the expanded data set we reaffirm that length has a significant effect on the home range size in both lentic and lotic environments, with the effect of length being more pronounced in lotic environments. Similarly, we determined water body size also significantly influences home range size and is the key determinant of home range size in both lentic and lotic environments. We also demonstrate the importance of trophic guild and latitude as determinants of home range in lentic and lotic environments. The factors influencing home range size in both environments were common (i.e. fish length, water body size, trophic guild and latitude), but varied in importance weight between the environments. The results of this study help illuminate the weight of importance of factors influencing the home range of freshwater fishes and provide useful information for conservation and environmental management planning purposes.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 teacher head, 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".