Physiological differences between wild and cultured bivalves in Prince Edward Island, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bivalve culture in Canada increased by 25% from 2000 to 2016. In Prince Edward Island (PEI), bivalves are cultivated in bays and estuaries and there is limited space for further aquaculture expansion. Thus, there is merit in developing a numerical model determining the abundance of bivalve populations in relation to their food availability in order to assess the carrying capacity of shellfish growing areas. This modelling will take into account the different bivalve species present in the bay, as the cultivated Mytilus edulis and Crassostrea virginica and wild, M. edulis, C. virginica, Mya arenaria and Mercenaria mercenaria. As a first step toward a modelling goal, this study compared the physiological differences of the 6 bivalve groups. Three physiological parameters were measured: clearance rate, oxygen consumption and assimilation to determine the energy budget or scope for growth (SFG). These measurements were carried out on individuals contained in metabolic chamber at summer and autumn temperatures (20 and 8 °C, respectively). Our results show that M. edulis is best adapted to these temperature in PEI as it maintains high SFG at both temperatures. For C. virginica and M. arenaria, high physiological parameters under summer conditions were observed, followed by a decrease in autumn. For M. mercenaria rates were low at both temperatures indicating a persistently low growth potential. These results demonstrate the adaptive physiological capacity of each species and provide insight into the underlying reasons some species such as C. virginica and M. mercenaria are at their northern distribution limit in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Finally, no differences in the SFG between cultivated and wild bivalves have been observed. These results are discussed within the context of estimating the impact of each bivalve group in bays environment from PEI and particularly on food availability.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".