Ballast Water Exchange Plus Treatment Lowers Species Invasion Rate in Freshwater Ecosystems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The movement of ballast water by commercial shipping is a prominent pathway for aquatic invasions. Ships' ballast water management is now transitioning from open ocean exchange to a ballast water performance standard that will effectively require use of onboard treatment systems. Neither strategy is perfect, therefore, combined use of ballast water exchange plus treatment has been suggested to provide greatest protection of aquatic ecosystems. This study compared the performance of exchange plus treatment against treatment alone by modeling establishment rates of nonindigenous zooplankton introduced by ballast water across different habitat types (fresh, brackish, and marine) in Canada. Treatment was modeled under two efficacy scenarios (100% and 50% of ship trips) to consider the possibility that treatment may not always be successful. The model results indicate that exchange plus treatment will be more effective than treatment alone at reducing establishments when recipient ports are freshwater (58 140 vs 11 338 trips until ≥1 establishment occurs, respectively). Exchange plus treatment also serves as an important backup strategy if treatment systems are partially effective (50% of trips), primarily for freshwater recipient ecosystems (1442 versus 585 trips until ≥1 establishment occurs, respectively).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".