The Effect of Seafood Processing Plant Effluent on Sentinel Fish Species in Coastal Waters of the Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, New Brunswick
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study evaluated effects of effluents discharged by seafood processing plants on populations of fish living in shallow estuarine waters of the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. To monitor potential nutrient and/or toxicity impacts on fish populations living and possibly feeding in the effluent, we measured indices of survival (age), growth (weight-at-age), reproduction (gonad weight), and energy storage (liver weight, condition factor) on mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus) and Atlantic silverside (Menidia menidia) in spring, summer, and fall. Fish exposed to effluents in three bays were compared to fish from a local reference site within the same bay and from regional reference sites in bays without seafood plants. Mummichog caught near seafood processing plants showed a number of differences from reference fish consistent with a localized nutrient enrichment effect including elevated growth (3 of 3 plants), liver size (2 of 3), and condition factor (1 of 3) in at least one of the months sampled. Female silverside caught near one of the three fish plants showed an elevated condition factor in spring, but otherwise silverside did not differ significantly from all four reference sites. In a number of cases, fish exposed to effluent differed from reference fish sampled from bays without fish plants but not from the local reference site, implying that the entire bay was affected either by the seafood processing plant or by some other factors. No harmful impacts such as reduced growth or survival were found in our study, possibly because the processing plants studied were relatively small and the amounts of waste discharged could be flushed by tides and currents and/or assimilated by the fish and other biota in the receiving environments.
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".