Interactive Effects of Stocking Density and Algal Feed Ration on Growth, Survival, and Ingestion Rate of Larval Geoduck Clams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The combined effects of initial stocking density (2, 5, 10 individuals [inds]/mL) and feed ration (5×103, 20×103, 40×103, 100×103 cells·ind−1·d−1) on growth, survival, and ingestion rate of larval geoduck clams Panopea generosa fed Isochrysis sp. (Tahitian strain, TISO clone) were assessed. All three measurements were significantly affected by stocking density, ration, and their interaction. Growth rate ranged from 2.15 to 3.85 μm/d in the various treatments. It increased with stocking density at 5×103 cells·ind−1·d−1, was significantly higher at 5 than at 2 inds/mL at 20×103 cells·ind−1·d−1, and was significantly higher at 2 and 5 than at 10 inds/mL at 40×103 and 100×103 cells·ind−1·d−1. Growth rate increased with increasing ration up to 40×103 cells·ind−1·d−1 at 2 and 5 inds/mL, but decreased with increasing ration at 10 inds/mL. Percent survival over the experiment duration (23 d) ranged from 7% to 56% in the various treatments and generally decreased with increasing stocking density. There was no significant effect of ration on percent survival at 2 and 5 inds/mL, but survival decreased with increasing ration at 10 inds/mL. Ingestion rate ranged from 2×103 to 29×103 cells·ind−1·d−1 in the various treatments. It was not significantly affected by stocking density at 5×103 and 20×103 cells·ind−1·d−1, but larvae held at 2 and 5 inds/mL had significantly higher ingestion rates than those stocked at 10 inds/mL at 40×103 and 100×103 cells·ind−1·d−1. Ingestion rate increased with ration at 2 and 5 inds/mL but was not significantly affected by ration at 10 inds/mL. Due to the significant interaction of the treatment factors, stocking density-specific ration levels must be selected in order to maximize growth and survival.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".