MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3169069451 · doi:10.1111/1365-2664.13941

Biometric conversion factors as a unifying platform for comparative assessment of invasive freshwater bivalves

2021· article· en· W3169069451 on OpenAlexaff
Neil E. Coughlan, Eoghan M. Cunningham, Ross N. Cuthbert, Patrick Joyce, Pedro Anastácio, Filipe Banha, Nicolás Bonel, Stephanie J. Bradbeer, Elizabeta Briski, Vince L. Butitta, Zuzana Čadková, Jaimie T. A. Dick, Karel Douda, Lawrence E. Eagling, Noé Ferreira‐Rodríguez, Leandro A. Hünicken, Mattias L. Johansson, Louise Kregting, Anna Maria Łabęcka, Deliang Li, Florencia Liquin, Jonathan Marescaux, Todd J. Morris, Patrycja Nowakowska, Małgorzata Ożgo, Esteban M. Paolucci, Miguel A. Peribáñez, Nicoletta Riccardi, Emily Smith, Michael J. Spear, Gregor Steffen, Jeremy S. Tiemann, Maria Urbańska, Karine Van Doninck, Martin Vastrade, Gina Y. W. Vong, Brygida Wawrzyniak‐Wydrowska, Zhiqiang Xia, Cong Zeng, Aibin Zhan, Francisco Sylvester

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Ecology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WindsorFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorbicula flumineaDry weightDreissenaBiomass (ecology)BiologyFreshwater bivalveEcologyEcosystemMusselBivalviaEnvironmental scienceMolluscaBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Invasive bivalves continue to spread and negatively impact freshwater ecosystems worldwide. As different metrics for body size and biomass are frequently used within the literature to standardise bivalve‐related ecological impacts (e.g. respiration and filtration rates), the lack of broadly applicable conversion equations currently hinders reliable comparison across bivalve populations. To facilitate improved comparative assessment among studies originating from disparate geographical locations, we report body size and biomass conversion equations for six invasive freshwater bivalves (or species complex members) worldwide: Corbicula fluminea, C. largillierti, Dreissena bugensis, D. polymorpha, Limnoperna fortunei and Sinanodonta woodiana, and tested the reliability (i.e. precision and accuracy) of these equations. Body size (length, width and height) and biomass metrics of living‐weight (LW), wet‐weight (WW), dry‐weight (DW), dry shell‐weight (SW), shell free dry‐weight (SFDW) and ash‐free dry‐weight (AFDW) were collected from a total of 44 bivalve populations located in Asia, the Americas and Europe. Relationships between body size and individual biomass metrics, as well as proportional weight‐to‐weight conversion factors, were determined. For most species, although inherent variation existed between sampled populations, body size directional measurements were found to be good predictors of all biomass metrics (e.g. length to LW, WW, SW or DW: R2 = 0.82–0.96), with moderate to high accuracy for mean absolute error (MAE): ±9.14%–24.19%. Similarly, narrow 95% confidence limits and low MAE were observed for most proportional biomass relationships, indicating high reliability for the calculated conversion factors (e.g. LW to AFDW; CI range: 0.7–2.0, MAE: ±0.7%–2.0%). Synthesis and applications. Our derived biomass prediction equations can be used to rapidly estimate the biologically active biomass of the assessed species, based on simpler biomass or body size measurements for a wide range of situations globally. This allows for the calculation of approximate average indicators that, when combined with density data, can be used to estimate biomass per geographical unit‐area and contribute to quantification of population‐level effects. These general equations will support meta‐analyses, and allow for comparative assessment of historic and contemporary data. Overall, these equations will enable conservation managers to better understand and predict ecological impacts of these bivalves.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations19
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied EcologySame topicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207