Benthic monitoring of salmon farms in Norway using foraminiferal metabarcoding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid growth of the salmon industry necessitates the development of fast and accurate tools to assess its environmental impact. Macrobenthic monitoring is commonly used to measure the impact of organic enrichment associated with salmon farm activities. However, classical benthic monitoring can hardly answer the rapidly growing demand because the morphological identification of macro-invertebrates is time-consuming, expensive and requires taxonomic expertise. Environmental DNA (eDNA) metabarcoding of meiofauna-sized organisms, such as Foraminifera, was proposed to overcome the drawbacks of macrofauna-based benthic monitoring. Here, we tested the application of foraminiferal metabarcoding to benthic monitoring of salmon farms in Norway. We analysed 140 samples of eDNA and environmental RNA (eRNA) extracted from surface sediment samples collected at 4 salmon farming sites in Norway. We sequenced the variable region 37f of the 18S rRNA gene specific to Foraminifera. We compared our data to the results of macrofaunal surveys of the same sites and tested the congruence between various diversity indices inferred from metabarcoding and morphological data. The results of our study confirm the usefulness of Foraminifera as bioindicators of organic enrichment associated with salmon farming. The foraminiferal diversity increased with the distance to fish cages, and metabarcoding provides an assessment of the ecological quality comparable to the morphological analyses. The foraminiferal metabarcoding approach appears to be a promising alternative to classical benthic monitoring, providing a solution to the morpho-taxonomic bottleneck of macrofaunal surveys.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".