MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982523023 · doi:10.1111/1365-2664.13528

Can chlorination of ballast water reduce biological invasions?

2019· article· en· W2982523023 on OpenAlexafffund
Ya‐Ping Lin, Aibin Zhan, Marco R. Hernandez, Esteban M. Paolucci, Hugh J. MacIsaac, Elizabeta Briski

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Ecology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine Ecology and Invasive Species
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersChina Postdoctoral Science FoundationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPropagule pressurePropaguleSpecies richnessRelative species abundanceBallastBiologyColonizationInvasive speciesEcologyAbundance (ecology)Grazing pressureZooplanktonIntroduced speciesBiological dispersalGrazing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Ballast water has been identified as a leading vector for introduction of non‐indigenous species. Recently, the International Maritime Organization implemented management standards—D‐2—where all large, commercial ships trading internationally are required to adopt an approved treatment system using technologies such as ultraviolet radiation or chlorination. However, current management regulations are based only on the total abundance of viable taxa transported (i.e. total propagule pressure), largely ignoring species richness (i.e. colonization pressure). To determine the efficacy of chlorine treatment in reducing invasion risks and changes in transported biological communities inside ballast tanks, we used DNA metabarcoding‐based approaches to estimate colonization pressure (here, the number of species/operational taxonomic units [OTUs] introduced) and relative propagule pressure (relative abundance of each species/OTU) of zooplankton communities in control and chlorine treated tanks during four transatlantic voyages. Our study demonstrated that transport itself did not significantly reduce colonization pressure of zooplankton species, nor did chlorine treatment. Chlorine treatment altered community structure by reducing relative propagule pressure of some taxa such as Mollusca and Rotifera, while increasing relative propagule pressure of some Oligohymenophorea and Copepoda species. Synthesis and applications. Chlorine treatment may not reduce invasion risks as much as previously thought. Reduction in total propagule pressure does not mean reduction in abundance of all species equally. While some taxa might experience drastically reduced abundance, others might not change at all or increase due to hatching from dormant stages initiated by chlorine exposure. Therefore, management strategies should consider changes in total propagule pressure and colonization pressure when forecasting risk of new invasions. We therefore recommend adopting new approaches, such as DNA metabarcoding‐based methods, to assess the whole biodiversity discharged from ballast water. As species responses to chlorine treatment are variable and affected by concentration, we also recommend a combination of different technologies to reduce introduction risks of aquatic organisms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.359
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.188 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied EcologySame topicMarine Ecology and Invasive SpeciesFrench-language works237,207