Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35193696›Full record

ArticleMovement ecology2022

Paradigm versus paradox on the prairie: testing competing stream fish movement frameworks using an imperiled Great Plains minnow.

Zachary D Steffensmeier, Maeghen Wedgeworth, Lauren Yancy, Noah Santee, Shannon K Brewer, Joshuah S Perkin

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Movement ecology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Zachary D SteffensmeierDepartment of Ecology and Conservation Biology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA. steffensmeierz@tamu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3323-5968
Maeghen WedgeworthOklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA.
Lauren YancyDepartment of Ecology and Conservation Biology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA.
Noah SanteeDepartment of Ecology and Conservation Biology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA.
Shannon K BrewerU.S. Geological Survey, AL Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA.
Joshuah S PerkinDepartment of Ecology and Conservation Biology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA.
Texas A&M University · USOklahoma State University · USUnited States Geological Survey · US

Funding

Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation F18AF00575Sigma Xi G201903158785728
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMovement information can improve conservation of imperiled species, yet movement is not quantified for many organisms in need of conservation. Prairie chub (Macrhybopsis australis) is a regionally endemic freshwater fish with unquantified movement ecology and currently considered for listing under the Endangered Species Act. The purpose of this study was to test competing ecological theories for prairie chub movement, including the colonization cycle hypothesis (CCH) that posits adults must make upstream movements to compensate for downstream drift at early life stages, and the restricted movement paradigm (RMP) that describes populations as heterogeneous mixes of mostly stationary and few mobile fish.

methodsWe tagged prairie chub with visible implant elastomer during the summer (May-August) of 2019 and 2020 to estimate net distance moved (m) and movement rate (m/d). We tested the hypotheses that observed prairie chub movement would be greater than expected under the RMP and that prairie chub movement would be biased in an upstream direction as predicted by the CCH.

resultsWe tagged 5771 prairie chub and recaptured 213 individuals across 2019 and 2020. The stationary and mobile components of the prairie chub population moved an order of magnitude further and faster than expected under the RMP during both years. However, we found only limited evidence of upstream bias in adult prairie chub movement as would be expected under the CCH.

conclusionsOur findings are partly inconsistent with the RMP and the CCH, and instead closely follow the drift paradox (DP), in which upstream populations persist despite presumed downstream drift during early life stages and in the apparent absence of upstream bias in recolonization. Previous mathematical solutions to the DP suggest organisms that experience drift maintain upstream populations through either minimization of drift periods such that small amounts of upstream movement are needed to counter the effects of advection or increasing dispersal regardless of directionality. We conclude that the resolution to the DP for prairie chub is an increase in total dispersal and our results provide insight into the spatial scales at which prairie chub conservation and management may need to operate to maintain broad-scale habitat connectivity.

Indexed as

Colonization cycle hypothesisConservation biologyDispersalDrift paradoxPelagic-broadcast spawningRestricted movement paradigm

Identifiers

PMID35193696
PMCPMC8864925
OpenAlexW4212935626

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.