MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105107628 · doi:10.1139/f2012-057

Bivalve-enhanced nitrogen removal from coastal estuaries

2012· article· en· W2105107628 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ruth H. Carmichael, William C. Walton, Heidi J. Clark

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine Bivalve and Aquaculture Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstuaryPhytoplanktonOysterEutrophicationEnvironmental scienceCrassostreaBiogeochemical cycleEastern oysterAquacultureBivalviaFisheryEcologyOceanographyBiologyMolluscaNutrientFish <Actinopterygii>Geology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interest in use of bivalves to remediate estuarine eutrophication has increased in recent years. High variation among data sets, substantial focus on particle removal, and insufficient links to anthropogenic nitrogen (N) sources encouraged this empirical examination of N removal by bivalves from estuaries receiving different N loads. We determined the capacity of the oyster Crassostrea virginica to remove N by comparing N assimilated into tissues with anthropogenic N from land or available in phytoplankton. Oyster growth yielded 0.2–0.4 g N in tissues and depended on estuary-specific conditions. δ 15 N values confirmed that N in oyster tissues derived from local anthropogenic sources. At representative restoration and aquaculture conditions (≤400 oysters·m –2 at 0.5%–1.0% of estuary area), estimated N removal was ≤15% of land-derived loads and &lt;1% of phytoplankton N. N removal via biogeochemical processes was negligible during grow-out, but became important after oysters attained harvestable size. This study explicitly demonstrates that oysters assimilated land-derived N, but suggests that bivalve bioremediation consider trade-offs between intensity of planting, ecological effects, and available space.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.279
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.205 · 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.

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

Citations95
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicMarine Bivalve and Aquaculture StudiesFrench-language works237,207