MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990164599 · doi:10.1016/j.icesjms.2005.03.009

Immediate impacts and recovery trajectories of macrofaunal communities following hydraulic clam dredging on Banquereau, eastern Canada

2005· article· en· W1990164599 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kent Gilkinson, Donald C. Gordon, Kevin G. MacIsaac, D.L. McKeown, Ellen Kenchington, C Bourbonnais, W. Peter Vass

Bibliographic record

VenueICES Journal of Marine Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine Biology and Ecology Research
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyNatural Resources CanadaFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDredgingPolychaeteAbundance (ecology)Biomass (ecology)FisherySedimentInvertebrateEnvironmental scienceBioturbationOceanographyEcologyBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A hydraulic clam dredging experiment, designed to mimic offshore commercial dredging practices, was carried out at a depth of approximately 70 m on a sandy seabed on Banquereau, on the Scotian Shelf, eastern Canada. The experiment was designed to study the separate and combined effects of dredging through three treatment boxes (Dredging Only, Dredging and Discarding, Discarding Only) and two spatially separated reference boxes. In all, 270 taxa were identified from grab samples. Of these, four bivalves are targeted in the commercial fishery (Arctica islandica, Cyrtodaria siliqua, Mactromeris polynyma, and Serripes groenlandicus) while 266 taxa were non-target species. Sample biomass was dominated by the propellerclam, C. siliqua, and the echinoderm, Echinarachnius parma, while the polychaete, Spiophanes bombyx, was the numerical dominant. The dredges captured 33 invertebrate and two fish taxa, although >80% of the catch biomass comprised propellerclams and echinoderms. Immediately after dredging, most macrofaunal species decreased in abundance, with the greatest declines inside dredge furrows (which covered 53–68% of the area inside the dredged boxes). Large numbers of propellerclams were excavated to the seabed surface, with a large proportion showing massive damage. There were few signs of discards on the sediment surface. Recovery trajectories of target and non-target species were followed for 2 years. Following initial declines in abundance and biomass of most taxa immediately after dredging, there were marked increases in abundance of polychaetes and amphipods after 1 year. Two years after dredging, abundances of opportunistic species were generally elevated by ≫100% relative to pre-dredging levels. Two years after dredging, average taxonomic distinctness had decreased (i.e. taxonomic relatedness between species had increased) due, in part, to increased numbers of species of certain polychaetes and amphipods, while communities had become numerically dominated (50–70%) by S. bombyx. It is concluded that the disturbed community was still in the colonizing phase 2 years after dredging. The mobile brittlestar, Ophiura sarsi, displayed increases in abundance ranging from 200% to 300% in the dredged and reference boxes over the 2-year post-dredging. A similar response of non-target macrofauna in the reference boxes suggests, possibly, a coincident natural recruitment pulse. Dredging resulted in pronounced, sustained reductions in biomass (up to 67%) of the target bivalves with no signs of recovery after 2 years. Recruitment of target bivalves (>1-mm shell length) was very low throughout the experimental area during this interval.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.507
Threshold uncertainty score0.837

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations43
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueICES Journal of Marine ScienceSame topicMarine Biology and Ecology ResearchFrench-language works237,207