Magnitude and Extent of Water Clarification Services Provided by Bivalve Suspension Feeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies in bivalve ecology have emphasized that phytoplankton dynamics in coastal regions may be strongly coupled with bivalve suspension feeding activity to the extent that the bivalves play a major ecological role in controlling phytoplankton biomass. The water clarification capacity of natural and cultured bivalve populations serves as the foundation for what is considered to be a manageable bioengineering tool for mitigating the major symptoms of eutrophication and thereby providing positive ecosystem-scale services. Although often predicted, suspended particle depletion by bivalve aggregations has only recently been measured directly. Field observations of food depletion by bivalve aggregations confirm the large capacity for water clarification. However, progressively increasing the standing stock of bivalves to achieve greater water clarification benefits eventually lead to inefficiencies in bivalve feeding related to increased flow reduction from structure drag, which facilitates an increase in water re-filtration. These physical and biological processes ultimately constrain the maximum water clarification capacity of the population to levels that can be substantially less than previously predicted. Positive ecosystem services from bivalve grazing are likely to occur in many coastal areas experiencing eutrophication (e.g. Lindahl 2011). However, it is important to take an ecosystem-based management approach that also considers the potential for adverse environmental interactions that may be associated with intensive and extensive suspended bivalve operations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".