MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133739517 · doi:10.1007/s10811-021-02427-x

Biomass and height of Ascophyllum nodosum after two decades of continuous commercial harvesting in eastern Canada

2021· article· en· W3133739517 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jean‐Sébastien Lauzon‐Guay, R. Ugarte, Bryan L. Morse, C. A. Robertson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Phycology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal plant biology
Canadian institutionsAcadian Seaplants (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAscophyllumNova scotiaBiomass (ecology)Brown seaweedEnvironmental scienceAlgaeBiologyGeographyEcologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract With the increasing demand for seaweed resources worldwide, management must ensure that the harvest of wild seaweed stocks is sustainable. We evaluate the impact of over 25 years of commercial harvesting of Ascophyllum nodosum in eastern Canada by comparing the biomass and height of the seaweed in the late 1990s to the late 2010s over a broad spatial scale spanning the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. There has been no significant decrease in the biomass of A. nodosum in either province, and biomass has increased in some regions of New Brunswick during that period. The average height of A. nodosum has decreased by 7.8 cm in Nova Scotia while it increased by 13.8 cm in New Brunswick. Biomass of A. nodosum in unharvested sectors was 7% higher than that in harvested sectors while height of A. nodosum in unharvested sectors in New Brunswick is similar to the values observed in harvested sectors. Over the same period, water temperature has increased in both provinces and, in recent years, has at times exceeded the optimal growing temperature for A. nodosum within bays in Nova Scotia. We conclude that the current management and harvest of A. nodosum in eastern Canada are sustainable and maintain the biomass and height of A. nodosum beds but that control sites are necessary to offer adequate comparisons as environmental conditions are changing.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.660
Threshold uncertainty score0.794

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.190 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations26
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhycologySame topicMarine and coastal plant biologyFrench-language works237,207