MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112607927 · doi:10.1139/f09-094

Monitoring and potential control of sea lice using an LED-based light trap

2009· article· en· W2112607927 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Iñigo Novales Flamarique, Christina Olga Marie Gulbransen, Moira Galbraith, Dario Stucchi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicParasite Biology and Host Interactions
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLepeophtheirusFisheryBiologyOncorhynchusAquaculturePlanktonChinook windTrap (plumbing)Fish farmingFish <Actinopterygii>Environmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sea lice are ectoparasitic copepods that threaten salmon farming aquaculture and the viability of wild salmon populations. To control infestations on farmed salmon, several chemotherapeutants have been developed, but these are invasive (often causing fish stress and loss in production), costly, may induce parasite resistance over time, and their impact on the environment is a major social concern. Here, we show that a light-emitting diode (LED)-based light trap can be used to monitor sea lice presence on fish and in the water. The performance of the light trap was tested in experimental tanks and in the ocean. Plankton net tows were also performed to compare catches with those from light traps. The light trap caught ~70% of salmon lice larval stages loaded onto a tank and ~24% of the adults. It also acted as a delousing agent by removing ~8% of adult salmon lice infective on Chinook salmon ( Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ) smolts in tank experiments. In the ocean, the light trap caught 21 sea lice (10 Lepeophtheirus salmonis and 11 Caligus clemensi ), comprising free-swimming and attached stages, while plankton net tows failed to capture any. We conclude that light traps constitute an effective, noninvasive, environmentally friendly method to monitor sea lice.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.502

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations31
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicParasite Biology and Host InteractionsFrench-language works237,207