Development of release methods for captive‐bred freshwater pearl mussels (<i>Margaritifera margaritifera</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Biodiversity loss is a global problem with freshwater bivalves considered among the most endangered biota. The freshwater pearl mussel, Margaritifera margaritifera, is declining throughout its range owing to habitat degradation and overexploitation. In most of its range, populations are regarded as reproductively non‐functional, which has led to the development of captive breeding programmes. A novel method of releasing M. margaritifera was tested, with captive‐bred juveniles being released into the rivers caged in ‘mussel silos’ (protective concrete domes with ventilation creating upwelling to ensure water through‐flow). In total, 240 juvenile mussels were released and survival and growth rates were monitored for 18 months after release for three size classes: A (13.01–20.00 mm); B (10.01–13.00 mm); and C (4.01–10.00 mm). Two experimental treatments were tested: one in which sediment was added to each silo (allowing mussels to orientate and burrow) and one without sediment. Survival by the end of the experiment at month 18 was significantly higher for the largest size class at 97% (although growth was lowest in this cohort), and lowest for the smallest size class, at 61% (although growth was highest in this cohort). Survival and growth were unaffected by the experimental treatment suggesting that adding sediment offered no advantage. Growth was positively correlated both with water temperature and with particle size of suspended solids (both of which were collinear, peaking in summer). There are many ex situ breeding programmes for freshwater pearl mussels throughout Europe and the results of this study suggest that the use of mussel silos may be a useful tool to protect juvenile mussels, allowing them to be released at a relatively early stage of development and minimizing the risk of domestication. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".