Relative Abundance of Mytilus edulis (invasive) and Mytilus trossulus (native) in Differing CO2 Concentrations of Vancouver Coastal Waters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relative abundance of the invasive blue mussel species, Mytilus edulis, to the native species, Mytilus trossulus, was recorded at Acadia Beach and Sunset Beach Park on Vancouver’s coast. Carbon dioxide measurements of the water at each location were also compared. M. edulis is of interest as it can potentially outcompete the native mussel species, affecting British Columbia’s marine ecosystem. Nineteen mussel samples were taken at both locations, as well as ten water samples, which were used to measure CO2 concentration. DNA was isolated from the mantle tissue of the mussel, and used for polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and gel electrophoresis analysis to identify the phenotypically-identical species. A t-test was performed on the mean water CO2 measurements, resulting in a statistically significant difference between the two locations (p-value < 0.001). The relative abundance of M. trossulus to M. edulis (n=19) at the site of lower CO2 concentration (Acadia Beach, 3.27 ppm) was 15.8%, while at the site of higher CO2 concentration (Sunset Beach Park, 6.74 ppm) the relative abundance (n=15) was 20.0%. A Fisher’s test resulted in a statistically insignificant difference (p = 1.000) between the relative abundance of the two mussel species at the two sites. Findings suggest that the relative abundance of M. trossulus and M. edulis is unaffected by water CO2 concentration of the observed range. Consequently, native and invasive blue mussel species’ relative distributions are likely to remain unaffected by a predicted increase in carbon dioxide level.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".