Experimental Manipulation of Suspended Culture Socks: Growth and Behavior of Juvenile Mussels (Mytilus spp.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Suspended mussel culture entails loading high densities of juvenile mussels into mesh socks, and hanging them from floating longlines, often resulting in intraspecific crowding, reduced growth, and mussel yield. Despite this potential bottleneck in culture, there are few data on behavioral mechanisms that regulate juvenile density and growth rate. A field experiment was conducted with culture socks to examine the effects of stocking density (High ∼800 mussels/30.5 cm; Low ∼400 mussels/30.5 cm), blue mussel species (Mytilus edulis and M. trossulus) and environment on early development of the culture population. In situ photography and direct sampling were used to generate time series of mussel size, valve gape, siphon area, shell orientation, and emergence in experimental socks at a commercial farm in Ship Harbour, Nova Scotia, Canada. Moored CTD-current meters and water sampling were used to characterize the sites. Emergence from the culture socks required 1–2 mo, with faster initial emergence in M. trossulus. High densities generally did not affect mussel emergence rate or orientation, but higher current speeds produced a negative effect on M. edulis emergence rate. At the experimental densities used, emergence was complete and few mussels remained inside the culture sock. Nonetheless, interior mussels showed mechanical stress such as shell distortion and reduced growth compared with emerged individuals. Mussels exhibited largely horizontal orientation presumably in response to horizontal currents. Siphon area displayed a unimodal response with an optimum at the middle of the current speed range. No density-dependent effect on valve gape was detected, but a significant interaction between siphon area and stocking density suggests that optimal hydrodynamic response is sensitive to crowding. Growth of shell and tissue showed little negative density-dependence. Mussels are proposed to alleviate crowding via behavioral sorting. Although there is concern that growth studies of cultured mussels are often deficient because they use cages or other containers rather than socks, this study suggests that conditions of the sock environment such as crowding may be less important than macroenvironmental factors (e.g., current speed) in determining growth.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 teacher head, 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".