Effect of enriched rotifers on growth, survival, and composition of larval Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recently, the nutritional requirements of marine finfish larvae have received considerable attention, and studies have shown that docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) affects the growth and survival of marine finfish larvae. We investigated the effects of different rotifer diets containing variable amounts of DHA on the growth and survival of larval Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua L.). Four different commercial rotifer enrichment formulations were used: spray-dried whole cells composed of Crypthecodinium sp. (ED1), spray-dried whole cells of Schizochytrium sp. (ED2), an oil emulsion (ED3) and ED1, and dried Chlorella at a 7:3 ratio by weight (ED4). The resultant rotifers contained a similar concentration of DHA (1.1–1.6% DW), but the level of DHA differed in proportion to EPA for each enrichment, and was designated ER1–4. Twelve 30-l aquaria were used with three replicates per treatment. Larvae were fed with rotifers from 3 to 43 days post-hatch (dph) at 4000 prey l−1. At the end of the experiment, no significant differences were found in body length and dry weight between the larvae reared on ER1 and ER2. However, larvae reared on ER3 were significantly smaller (both in length and weight) than larvae reared on ER1 and ER2. Larval survival on the ER2 treatment at 43 dph was significantly higher than on the other three treatments. Our results showed a positive effect of rotifer DHA proportions on growth and survival of cod larvae, and demonstrated that Atlantic cod larvae require a high ratio of dietary DHA to EPA.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".