Persistence of native riverine fishes downstream from two hydropower dams with contrasting operations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying hydropower dam operations that lessen detrimental effects on downstream fauna could inform conservation strategies for native fishes. We compared occurrence of native fishes in 20 shoal habitats downstream from two differently operated hydropower dams in the Coosa River system, Georgia, USA. Species richness averaged 7 and 11, respectively, in surveys downstream from (1) a hydropeaking dam and (2) a dam with a re-regulation structure that stabilized downstream flows. In contrast, surveys in two nearby reference communities averaged 19 and 24 species. Species persisting downstream from the dams tended toward water-column orientation, larger body size, longer life span, and greater prevalence in tributary stream collections, compared with missing or rarely captured species. We observed no evidence of recovery toward reference conditions when operations were paused for 28 months at the hydropeaking dam. Our observations suggest that (1) strongly contrasting dam operations can result in similar alterations to native fish assemblages, potentially reflecting effects of thermal alteration by hypolimnetic water release, and (2) periodic dispersal from tributary streams may enhance fish persistence in flow-altered rivers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".