MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414000991 · doi:10.1111/jfb.70204

Preliminary insights into fish movements beyond the massive Iron Gate dams on the Danube River using acoustic telemetry

2025· article· en· W4414000991 on OpenAlexaff
Marija Smederevac‐Lalić, Marian Paraschiv, Gorčin Cvijanović, Torgeir B. Havn, Ştefan Honţ, Mirjana Lenhardt, Marian Iani, Robert J. Lennox, Dušan Nikolić, Finn Økland, Rachel A. Paterson, Eva B. Thorstad

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Biology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsOcean Tracking NetworkDalhousie University
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsBarbelFisheryBiologyLeuciscusBarbusFish migrationCyprinusFish <Actinopterygii>CyprinidaeHydropowerCommon carpEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Upstream fish movement in the Danube River at the Iron Gate is blocked by the massive hydropower dams and ship locks, as shown by tracking six fish species (vimba bream Vimba vimba, common nase Chondrostoma nasus, barbel Barbus barbus, asp Leuciscus aspius, Pontic shad Alosa immaculata and common carp Cyprinus carpio). In the absence of effective fish passage systems, the current level of river connectivity is insufficient to support upstream movement and migration for this diverse, multispecies fish community. The tagged cyprinids displayed evidence of migratory behaviour. Individuals of vimba bream, barbel, asp and common nase that were transported across the lowermost dam and released into the lower reservoir section showed rapid upstream movement, suggesting that the reservoir itself did not present significant obstacles to migration. Some covered the entire 76-km long reservoir within a few days to 2 weeks but were ultimately blocked by the next dam. Cyprinids released below the dams were recorded at varying depths and on both sides of the river. Asp, barbel, common nase and vimba bream moved both upstream and downstream relatively close to the surface below the Iron Gate II dam, averaging 2-3 m below the surface, but also diving down to about 10-20 m. Future studies combining three-dimensional telemetry methods and detailed information on hydrology below the dams could provide further information on the behaviours of the different fish species, which is needed to design efficient fish passage solutions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish BiologySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207