Absorption efficiency, ingestion rate, gut passage time and scope for growth in suspension- and deposit-feeding Yoldia hyperborea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laboratory feeding experiments were conducted to study the importance of suspensionfeeding in the protobranch bivalve Yoldia hyperborea at different suspended particle concentrations in order to evaluate the importance of this feeding strategy when compared with its known strategy of deposit feeding.Standard feeding variables (absorption efficiency, AE; gut passage time, GPT; ingestion rate, IR) were estimated by quantifying 68 Ge/ 14 C in dual-labelled Thalassiosira nordenskioldii fed to Y. hyperborea.For the first time, results were also used to estimate scope for growth (SFG) in a protobranch bivalve.Absorption efficiency was higher when Y. hyperborea was deposit feeding (87.7 to 94.8%) than it was during suspension feeding (50.1 to 71.7%), whereas GPT was similar in most cases and ranged between 8.15 and 20.11 h.However, IRs for suspended particulate matter (SPM, dry weight) were mostly negligible (< 0.01 to 5.77 µg PM h -1 ) when compared with deposit feeding (2067.4 to 6872.3 µg PM h -1 ), although in one case suspension-feeding individuals ingested 93.7 µg PM h -1 .Scope for growth was always positive in deposit feeders (113.8 to 372.4 J d -1 ), whereas under suspension-feeding conditions it was mostly negative and could not meet metabolic requirements.In addition, mortality of Y. hyperborea increased at suspended particle concentrations above 0.085 mg ml -1 .Although deposit feeding is the principal feeding strategy followed by Yoldia hyperborea, suspension feeding is invoked at low suspended particle loads and may serve as a strategy for capturing highly nutritional particles suspended at the sediment -water interface.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".