Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dispersal of invertebrate larvae is determined by larval swimming behavior, the length of planktonic development and the hydrodynamic regime. Larvae of estuarine invertebrates must refrain from export or invade an estuary after development in the ocean. This study investigates retention patterns of estuarine molluscs by measuring time series of larval abundance in relation to hydrodynamic processes. Previous investigations of larval dynamics have generally focused on larger estuarine systems that are often stratified and have relatively long hydraulic residence times. The estuary studied in this investigation supports dense populations of infaunal clams yet has a water depth to tidal amplitude ratio near unity. To access processes affecting larval retention, the circulation patterns of the estuary were measured with time series of salinity, temperature, pressure and horizontal velocity. Transport rates of larvae between ocean and estuary, and within the estuary proper, were calculated from velocity and larval concentration time series. The daily residence time of the estuary was determined for the summer spawning period. The results demonstrate that molluscan larvae were routinely transported between the estuary and nearshore zone in tidal flows. Based on the magnitude of the horizontal current velocities, passive transport of larvae predominates during most of the tidal cycle in the estuary. Residence time calculations suggest that the ability of larvae to remain in the estuary through larval development is unlikely, and there was no evidence of selective retention of mature bivalve larvae in the estuary. Rather, larvae are exported rapidly from the estuary and undergo development in the coastal ocean. Mesoscale physical processes in the coastal ocean probably control variation in the delivery of larvae back to estuarine systems. Recruitment to this and similar estuaries must therefore be dependent on invasion.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".