Use of differently enriched rotifers,<i>Brachionus plicatilis</i>, during larviculture of haddock,<i>Melanogrammus aeglefinus</i>: effects on early growth, survival and body lipid composition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated the effects of enriched rotifers on growth, survival and on the lipid composition of haddock larvae. The treatments tested were (1) AlgaMac 2000®, (2) AquaGrow® Advantage and (3) Pavlova sp. paste and AlgaMac 2000®. The treatments did not influence larval growth rate throughout the experimental period (P = 0.70). Larvae from all treatments grew approximately 8% of their dry weight per day between 1 and 29 days post hatch (dph). Treatment 3 resulted in the best survival, estimated to be 3 on a scale from 0 to 5, whereas for the two other groups the survival estimates were 0 and 2. Rotifers from treatment 1 had low sterol concentrations, high eicosapentaenoic acid/arachidonic acid ratio and their feeding resulted in high larval mortality. Rotifers enriched with Pavlova sp. had the lowest proportions of the sum of saturated fatty acids, docosahexaenoic acid and sum of ω3 and the highest proportions of the sum of monounsaturated fatty acids (ΣMUFA). This was partially reflected in larvae from treatment 3 in that they had the highest proportions of ΣMUFA and the lowest proportions of Σω3 (P < 0.0001 for both analyses). In addition, these larvae had the highest and lowest ΣC20 and ΣC22 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) respectively (P < 0.0001 for both analyses). We suggest that more research with ω3 and ω6 PUFA can lead to improvements in the rearing of haddock larvae produced in hatcheries.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".