Reproduction of grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) in the Maumee River, Ohio: Part 1—Spawning area identification using bidirectional drift modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Control of invasive grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) populations in the Western Lake Erie Basin merits adaptive management guided by the best available science. Presently (2024), capture of mature grass carp in rivers during spawning season is most efficient, so knowing when and where grass carp are spawning is essential information for natural resource agencies. Using bidirectional drift modeling and grass carp ichthyoplankton samples captured in the Maumee River during the 2017–2019 spawning seasons, this study identified 12 probable grass carp spawning areas in the lower 96.5-kilometers of the Maumee River. These spawning areas were located both above and below the Grand Rapids/Providence low-head dams. Three areas showed evidence of multiyear use, while nine had multi-event use. Spawning activity had no definitive diel variation and occurred at an average photoperiod of 15.15 h. The maturation metric ADD15, or annual degree days above 15 degrees Celsius, generally exceeded the 655 threshold for spawning; however, some spawning occurred when ADD15 ≤235, indicating spawners likely matured in a warmwater discharge. The probable spawning areas were generally characterized by mean velocities between 0.4 and 2.1 m per second (with locally higher velocities possible), areas of high turbulence produced by dam spillways or bedrock outcroppings, channel constrictions, confluences, islands, and bridges with piers in the water. Spawning suitability indices (SSI), based on velocity, varied considerably between spawning areas and SSI models. These results could be used to inform control efforts and predict potential grass carp spawning locations in other rivers under threat of invasion.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".