CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1Fish Ecology and Management StudiesMarine and fisheries researchIchthyology and Marine Biology

Assessing shortnose sturgeon response to estuarine dredging in the Savannah River using a before-after control-impact (BACI) approach

Open access
Rider, Hunter J., Morgan, Katie M., Bond, Alan T., Nolan, Joseph D., Fox, Adam G., Hamel, Martin J.·2026·Environmental Biology of Fishes
DOI 10.1007/s10641-026-01901-0
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Estuaries are productive ecosystems that support diverse aquatic species and human economies through fisheries, recreation, and navigation. However, coastal development and dredging have altered the ecological processes of estuarine habitats. In the Savannah River estuary, the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project (SHEP) deepened the river’s navigational channel by dredging to amplify vessel commerce. The endangered shortnose sturgeon ( Acipenser brevirostrum ) relies on estuarine habitat in the Savannah River to complete its life cycle; the SHEP dredging was predicted to decrease estuarine habitat availability for the local population of shortnose sturgeon. To assess population trends in relation to the SHEP, we conducted mark-recapture sampling for shortnose sturgeon in the Savannah River in the summers of 2013–2024 and used Huggins closed population capture-recapture models to estimate annual juvenile and adult abundances. We applied a before-after control-impact (BACI) model approach to compare changes in demographic-based abundances over time in the Savannah River to abundances in the geographically proximate, relatively unaltered Altamaha River. The BACI model indicated a significant decline in juvenile abundance in the Savannah River during and after the SHEP, while adult abundance remained unchanged. The timeframe of this decline and the absence of juvenile declines in the reference river suggest it may be associated with dredging via the SHEP. Juvenile declines may further threaten recovery of the Savannah River population. Continued population-level monitoring efforts and protection of the remaining estuarine habitat are critical for the long-term persistence of the Savannah River shortnose sturgeon population.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Using 12 years of mark-recapture data and a before-after control-impact (BACI) design comparing the dredged Savannah River to the relatively unaltered Altamaha River, this study found a significant decline in juvenile shortnose sturgeon abundance in the Savannah River during and after the Savannah Harbor Expansion Project (SHEP), while adult abundance showed no significant BACI interaction. The authors suggest the juvenile decline may be associated with SHEP dredging and could threaten recovery of the Savannah River population.

Key findings

  • Juvenile abundance in the Savannah River declined significantly from the before period (2013–2019) to the during/after period (2020–2024) relative to the Altamaha River (BACI time × river interaction, p < 0.01); the Altamaha showed a non-significant increase (p = 0.21). Before the SHEP, juvenile abundance did not differ significantly between rivers (Savannah before = 5.79, se = 0.47; Altamaha before = 5.13, se = 0.36; p = 0.18).
  • Savannah River juvenile point estimates ranged from 15 juveniles in both 2023 (95% CI = 8–49) and 2024 (95% CI = 5–58) to 603 juveniles in 2018 (95% CI = 347–1084). Altamaha juvenile estimates ranged from 31 in 2018 (95% CI = 8–132) to 1000 in 2020 (95% CI = 406–2576).
  • Adult abundance showed no significant BACI interaction (p = 0.38). Savannah adult estimates ranged from 634 in 2021 (95% CI = 357–1217) to 3886 in 2019 (95% CI = 1184–13,511); Altamaha adult estimates ranged from 249 in 2015 (95% CI = 63–1267) to 3575 in 2017 (95% CI = 1821–7271). Adult abundance declined in both rivers from before to after the SHEP, but the change was non-significant.
  • Sampling in the Savannah River totaled 2701 nets, 1796 h of effort, 2084 shortnose sturgeon captures, and 99 recaptures (5%); the Altamaha River totaled 2013 nets, 1663 h, 1601 captures, and 55 recaptures (3%).

Methods

  • Long-term mark-recapture sampling occurred every summer from 2013 to 2024 in the Savannah and Altamaha River estuaries, using anchored monofilament gill and trammel nets in low-salinity reaches; captured fish were measured, PIT-tagged if untagged, and released. Fish were classified as juveniles (< 450 mm fork length) or adults (≥ 450 mm fork length).
  • Annual juvenile and adult abundances were estimated separately for each river and year using Huggins closed-population capture-recapture models in RMark, with candidate models including constant, time-varying, group-varying, and time × group capture probabilities; the top model was selected by AICc and Akaike weight.
  • BACI linear models used log-transformed annual abundance point estimates as the response, with time (before 2013–2019 vs during/after 2020–2024), river (Altamaha reference vs Savannah impact), and their interaction as fixed effects; juvenile and adult abundances were modeled separately.

Limitations

  • The paper states that some years lacked captures or recaptures to produce viable abundance estimates, including Savannah River years in the “after” period, and that the BACI model used point estimates despite potentially large 95% confidence intervals; missing years could have altered the BACI results.
  • The paper states that Huggins models assume closure, but recent telemetry found adults may make interriver migrations outside the summer sampling window, so adult abundances may include some non-natal individuals and exclude some natal individuals.
  • The paper states that it did not measure salinity or dissolved oxygen or investigate mechanisms, so the SHEP-related association is not a demonstrated cause; the authors describe SHEP habitat alteration as a parsimonious explanation. An evident limitation is that the BACI design uses one impact and one reference system, which limits broader causal inference.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10641-026-01901-0

Cites

53 of 54 references verified1 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

6 of 56 cited sources checked · 2 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Findingown data

    Before the SHEP, adult abundances were not significantly different between Altamaha and Savannah rivers (Altamaha before = 7.43, se = 0.32; Savannah before = 7.54, se = 0.42; p = 0.8).

    “Before the SHEP, adult abundances were not significantly different between the Altamaha and Savannah rivers (Altamaha before = 7.43, se = 0.32; Savannah before = 7.54, se = 0.42; p = 0.8; Table 6), with adult abundance in the Savannah River being slightly greater (Fig. 5).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Abundance estimates could not be calculated in Altamaha River in 2013 and 2014 because there were either no capture events or recapture events in those sampling seasons.

    “We could not calculate abundance estimates in the Altamaha River in 2013 and 2014 because there were either no capture events or recapture events in those sampling seasons (Figs. 2 and 3; Table 1).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The top Huggins closed capture model varied among years for each study river.

    “The top Huggins closed capture model, based on Akaike weight, varied among years for each study river (Tables 2 and 3).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In the Altamaha River, no significant temporal change in juvenile abundance was observed from before to after the SHEP.

    “whereas significant temporal change in juvenile abundance was not observed in the Altamaha River (Table 6).”
    • Also stated in: § Results · plain
      “while the Altamaha River showed a non-significant increase (Altamaha after = 5.84, se = 0.54, p = 0.21; Table 6) in juvenile abundance (Fig. 4).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In Altamaha River, adult abundance estimates varied from a minimum of 249 adults in 2015 to a maximum of 3575 adults in 2017.

    “Adult abundance estimates in the Altamaha River varied from a minimum of 249 adults (95% CI = 63-1267) in 2015 to a maximum of 3575 adults (95% CI = 1821-7271) in 2017 (Fig. 3; Table 5).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 14
  • May combine two claims. 11
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Fish using the navigational channel in the Savannah River estuary are vulnerable to vessel strikes.

    “Fish using the navigational channel in the Savannah River estuary will be vulnerable to vessel strikes”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Brown and Murphy 2010 source
    • cites Balazik et al. 2012 source
    • cites Hondorp et al. 2017 source

      The Discussion (page unavailable) links navigation-channel use by Lake Sturgeon in the lower Detroit River to increased vulnerability to ship strikes. The Introduction also says fish in shipping routes may be injured or killed by vessels. Neither passage addresses fish in the Savannah River estuary, so the location-specific claim extends beyond the source. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Recent telemetry studies found that adult shortnose sturgeon may make frequent inter-river migrations, but those migrations occurred outside the summer sampling window.

    “recent telemetry studies found that adults may make frequent interriver migrations-but that those migrations occurred outside our summer sampling window (Nolan et al. 2025;2026).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Nolan et al. 2025 source

      The paper’s movement-pattern passage (labelled Abstract in our copy; no page given) places the two tracked adults’ inter-river migrations around the winter–spring spawning window, outside summer. It documents repeated movements by those two fish, but says the proportion of adults that migrate this way is unknown; it does not establish that such migrations are frequent among adults generally. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Nolan et al. 2026 source

      The Results report inter-river migration in 48 of 206 tracked sturgeon. The Discussion (page unavailable) says some migrants crossed the coast annually and that migrations from the Altamaha and Savannah rivers typically occurred during the December–April spawning window, outside summer. It does not establish that all such migrations occurred outside the citing authors’ summer sampling window. (LLM, conf=0.83)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Less suitable habitat can increase intraspecific competition, potentially increasing density-dependent mortality in juvenile fish.

    “Additionally, less suitable habitat can increase intraspecific competition (Dadswell et al. 1984;Ross 1997), potentially increasing density-dependent mortality in juvenile fish (Hixon and Jones 2005;Lorenzen and Camp 2019).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Dadswell et al. 1984

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Ross 1997

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Hixon and Jones 2005 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Vessel strikes can result in injury or mortality to fish inhabiting navigational channels, with larger adult individuals being more susceptible to strikes.

    “vessel strikes can result in injury or mortality to fish inhabiting navigational channels, with larger, adult individuals being more susceptible to strikes (Brown and Murphy 2010;Balazik et al. 2012;Hondorp et al. 2017;Demetras et al. 2020).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Brown and Murphy 2010 source
    • cites Balazik et al. 2012 source
    • cites Demetras et al. 2020 source

      The paper states that vessel strikes pose a risk of injury and mortality to White Sturgeon in the Carquinez Strait, and discusses their potential overlap with vessels in shipping channels (main text; page unavailable). It does not establish that larger adults are more susceptible than smaller fish; it also describes sub-adult sturgeon as potentially vulnerable. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Dredging procedures result in direct removal of habitat for benthic fishes and can remove individual fish through entrainment.

    “Dredging procedures result in the direct removal of habitat (i.e., sediment, structure) for benthic fishes (Fischer et al. 2012;Freedman et al. 2013;Soinski et al. 2022) but can also remove individual fish through entrainment (Eleftheriou and Robertson 1992;Drabble 2012;Barletta et al. 2016).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Fischer et al. 2012 source
    • cites Freedman et al. 2013 source
    • cites Soinski et al. 2022 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Reasonable estimates of juvenile abundance in 2021 or adult abundance in 2024 could not be calculated for Altamaha River because there were not enough recaptures.

    “Furthermore, we could not calculate reasonable estimates of juvenile abundance in 2021 or adult abundance in 2024 for the Altamaha River because there were not enough recaptures.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The SHEP dredging was predicted to decrease estuarine habitat availability for the local population of shortnose sturgeon.

    “the SHEP dredging was predicted to decrease estuarine habitat availability for the local population of shortnose sturgeon.”
    • Also stated in: § Introduction · hedged
      “The SHEP was anticipated to have similar adverse effects on the estuary, including increasing salinities and decreasing dissolved oxygen concentrations, which would likely result in additional habitat loss for both adult and juvenile shortnose sturgeon (USACE 2012).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites USACE 2012

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationown data

    There may be other unknown mechanisms influencing survival of adult shortnose sturgeon at the regional level, since adult abundance in Altamaha River also declined over the same time frame.

    “Since adult abundance in the Altamaha River also declined over the same time frame, there may be other unknown mechanisms influencing survival of adult contingents of shortnose sturgeon at the regional level.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Adult abundance decline in Savannah River during and after SHEP could potentially be attributed to fewer juvenile fish surviving to maturity because of perturbations caused by the SHEP.

    “However, adult abundance in the Savannah River declined during and after the SHEP; this could potentially be attributed to fewer juvenile fish surviving to maturity because of perturbations caused by the SHEP.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    Huggins models assume population closure, and prior studies have shown that shortnose sturgeon populations meet this assumption during summer months in southern rivers when movement of fish is limited.

    “Huggins models assume population closure, and prior studies have shown that populations of shortnose sturgeon meet this assumption during summer months in southern rivers when movement of fish is limited (Hall et al. 1991;Peterson and Bednarski 2013;Bahr and Peterson 2017;Ingram and Peterson 2018).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Hall et al. 1991 source
    • cites Peterson and Bednarski 2013 source
    • cites Bahr and Peterson 2017 source

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Two years in the Savannah River during the 'after' time frame that included the SHEP's progression and completion lacked abundance estimates.

    “This includes 2 years in the Savannah River during the “after” time frame that included the SHEP's progression and completion.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Further loss of nursery habitat could cause bottlenecks in recruitment and threaten the long-term persistence of the Savannah River shortnose sturgeon population.

    “which could cause bottlenecks in recruitment and threaten the long-term persistence of the Savannah River shortnose sturgeon population.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The results demonstrate the value of long-term monitoring among multiple river systems in evaluating changes to systems that could negatively affect fish communities.

    “Our results demonstrate the value of long-term monitoring among multiple river systems in evaluating changes to systems that could negatively affect fish communities.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Mortality-related threats that shortnose sturgeon may be exposed to in the Savannah River can further impede recovery of southern populations of shortnose sturgeon.

    “these mortality-related threats that fish may be exposed to in the Savannah River can further impede recovery of southern populations of shortnose sturgeon (SSSRT 2010).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites SSSRT 2010

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The sampling methods have successfully captured shortnose sturgeon in Georgia rivers.

    “These methods have successfully captured shortnose sturgeon in Georgia rivers (Peterson and Farrae 2011;Peterson and Bednarski 2013;Bahr and Peterson 2017;Ingram et al. 2020;Kleinhans and Fox 2024).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Peterson and Farrae 2011 source
    • cites Peterson and Bednarski 2013 source
    • cites Bahr and Peterson 2017 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Establishing multi-year abundance estimates of shortnose sturgeon in each riverine population is an essential research objective in the species recovery plan to identify how populations at the riverine level respond to stressors or potential recovery actions over time.

    “Establishing multi-year abundance estimates of shortnose sturgeon in each riverine population is an essential research objective in the species recovery plan to identify how populations at the riverine level respond to stressors or potential recovery actions over time (NMFS 1998).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites NMFS 1998

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The long-term mark-recapture study used consistent methods and effort and relatively consistent sampling sites for well over a decade.

    “That study has used consistent methods and effort and relatively consistent sampling sites for well over a decade.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The Savannah River is presumed to contain the second largest shortnose sturgeon population in the southern extent of the species' current range, with a 2013 estimate as large as 2432 individuals.

    “The Savannah River is presumed to contain the second largest shortnose sturgeon population in the southern extent of the species' current range, with a 2013 estimate putting total population abundance as large as 2432 individuals (Bahr and Peterson 2017).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bahr and Peterson 2017 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The adult abundances quantified in this study may include some non-natal individuals and exclude some natal individuals.

    “we acknowledge that the adult abundances we quantified may include some non-natal individuals and exclude some natal individuals.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Sturgeon can potentially be entrained if individuals cannot exhibit the capacity to swim out of the dredging machinery's suction field.

    “sturgeon can be potentially entrained if individuals cannot exhibit the capacity to swim out of the dredging”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Boysen and Hoover 2009 source
    • cites Hoover et al. 2011 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Juvenile and adult abundance estimates were log-transformed to meet model assumptions of normality and homoscedasticity.

    “Juvenile and adult abundance estimates were evaluated in separate linear models, and abundance estimates were log-transformed to meet model assumptions of normality and homoscedasticity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    BACI models use concurrent data from a reference that has not been subject to disruption as a comparison to data from a treatment that has experienced a disruption to assess how the treatment has potentially responded to the disruption over the same time.

    “To evaluate the effects of the SHEP on the Savannah River population of shortnose sturgeon, we used BACI models, which use concurrent data from a reference (control) that has not been subject to disruption as a comparison to data from a treatment (impacted) that has experienced a disruption to assess how the treatment has potentially responded to the disruption over the same time (Underwood 1991;S”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Underwood 1991 source
    • cites Smith 2002 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The BACI model used point estimates of abundance as the response variable despite potentially large uncertainties (95% confidence intervals).

    “in our BACI model approach, we used point estimates of abundance as the response variable, despite potentially large uncertainties (i.e., 95% confidence intervals).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The Altamaha River served as an appropriate control system because it is geographically proximate to the Savannah River and is anthropogenically unaltered relative to the Savannah River.

    “We used the Altamaha River as a control in this study because of its geographic proximity to the Savannah River and because the Altamaha River is anthropogenically unaltered relative to the Savannah River.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The Altamaha River is anthropogenically unaltered relative to the Savannah River.
24 of 24

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Both the Savannah River and Altamaha River experience similar natural conditions (weather, seasonal patterns, environmental perturbations) due to their geographic proximity.

    “We use this estuary as a reference in our study because we expect that both systems experience similar natural conditions (i.e., weather, seasonal patterns, environmental perturbations) due to their geographic proximity.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The study area is closed to immigration and emigration during the sampling period.

    “The Huggins closed population capture-recapture model that we used to quantify abundance relies on an assumption that the study area is closed to immigration and emigration during sampling.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The Altamaha River is anthropogenically unaltered relative to the Savannah River.

    “the Altamaha River is anthropogenically unaltered relative to the Savannah River.”
3 of 3

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Juvenile BACI interaction conflicts with Table 6

    Major

    The Results give the juvenile interaction as positive 1.58, whereas Table 6 reports −3.55. These are conflicting values for the conclusion-bearing interaction.

  • Savannah River mean net count does not match the total

    Minor

    The study covers 12 years, so 2,701 nets average about 225 per year, not 209.

    Reported 209 · recomputed 225.083333

  • Adult BACI interaction conflicts with Table 6

    Minor

    The Results give the adult interaction as 6.84, whereas Table 6 reports −0.59. The prose also describes the interaction as non-significant, making the conflicting estimate consequential to its interpretation.

3 of 3

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Collins MR, Rogers SG, Smith TI, Moser ML (2000) Primary factors affecting sturgeon populations in the southeastern United States: fishing mortality and degradation of essential habitats. Bull Mar Sci 66:917–928
  2. Cummins AJ (2018) Recruitment of Atlantic Sturgeon and Shortnose sturgeon within the Savannah River, Georgia and South Carolina. Master's thesis, University of Georgia, Athens
  3. Jenkins WE, Smith TI, Heyward LD, Knott DM (1993) Tolerance of Shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum, juveniles to different salinity and dissolved oxygen concentrations. Proc Annu Conf Southeast Assoc Fish Wildl Agencies 47:476–484
  4. Rider HR, Morgan MK, Bond AT, Nolan JD, Fox AG, Hamel MJ (2025) Validating age estimates from pectoral fin spines and length-frequency analysis of known-age Shortnose sturgeon. J Southeast Assoc Fish Wildl Agencies 12:52–60
  5. Ross MR (1997) Fisheries conservation and management. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River
  6. Shortnose sturgeon Status Review Team (SSSRT) (2010) A biological assessment of Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rider, H. J., Morgan, K. M., Bond, A. T., Nolan, J. D., Fox, A. G., & Hamel, M. J.
Affiliations
University of Georgia (US)
Corresponding author
Hamel, Martin J.
ORCID
Venue
Environmental Biology of Fishes
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2026-08-28
Volume
109
Issue
3
ISSN
  • 0378-1909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-5133
DOI
10.1007/s10641-026-01901-0
OpenAlex
W7204496850
Cited by
1
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 1
FWCI
4.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Environmental Biology of Fishes (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Marine Fisheries Service (NA22NMF4720099)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Fish Ecology and Management Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Marine and fisheries research
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ichthyology and Marine Biology
Keywords
shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser brevirostrum, mark-recapture, Altamaha River, estuarine habitat loss, population recovery

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-27.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-27.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review