Effects of outplanting time on growth, shedding and quality of Saccharina latissima (Phaeophyceae) in its northern distribution range
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To reach the goal of large-scale seaweed cultivation in Norway and the rest of Europe, new knowledge about the commercially important kelp species Saccharina latissima is needed. Efforts to maximise biomass by outplanting the seaweed in different seasons can affect seaweed quality. Here, we investigate the effects of outplanting time (February, April, and May) when cultivating S. latissima in the northern range of the species’ distribution. We studied the quantity and quality of the seaweed biomass produced in the autumn following outplanting. Effects on quantity were evaluated as seaweed frond area, relative daily growth rate (DGR) and relative daily shedding rate (DSR). Quality was evaluated by tissue content of carbon and nitrogen compounds and number of fouling epizoans. Cultivation was successful when seedlings were outplanted in both February and April, but not in May. An earlier outplanting, in February, gave a prolonged time for grow-out at sea prior to the main recruitment event of epizoans that occurred in September, thereby earlier outplanting resulted in larger frond areas. The frond area reached in September was doubled when seedlings were outplanted in February compared to April, whereas a later outplanting in April gave a higher DGR and DSR, higher carbon content, and lower amount of fouling epizoans. The outplanting season did not affect tissue nitrate concentration or internally stored nitrate. These results show that outplanting time is an important factor to consider especially for biomass yield, but also for seaweed quality, including epibiosis of the seaweed biomass.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".