Literature review and considerations for effective capture and relocation of freshwater fish for in-water projects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Capture and relocation (C&R) of fish is a mitigation measure commonly used during in-water projects. The Fish and Fish Habitat Protection Program (FFHPP) has requested scientific information on the use and effectiveness of C&R to inform future development of standards and codes of practice. As such, we conducted an abridged systematic literature review and summarized Canadian government web information on the use of C&R for freshwater fishes. Our review suggested that literature specific to freshwater fish C&R activities is limited. Of the 23 documents retained, 10 concerned larval Pacific Lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus) salvages, and only one study attempted to assess effectiveness of lamprey-specific C&R protocols by estimating mortality. Two other studies reported the effectiveness of capture methods at removing fish from dredging worksites. Based on the results of our review, we present preliminary considerations for the development of freshwater fish C&R guidance, divided into five steps: 1) pre-capture, 2) capture, 3) handling, 4) holding and transporting, and 5) release. These considerations include the ecology of species present, knowledge about gear catchability and mortality, environmental conditions, and features of the release site. Moreover, we include available guidelines, permitting and reporting requirements for C&R of freshwater fishes in Canada, and conclude with recommendations for future research. Overall, this document serves as an initial step in compiling knowledge on freshwater fish C&R activities for DFO.
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 | 0.019 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.033 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".