Sea cage aquaculture may provide an energetic subsidy to wild juvenile cod in coastal bays of southern Newfoundland, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sea cage aquaculture can alter the spatial distribution of wild fish populations; however, little is known about the dietary habits of wild fish frequenting sea cages. We used wild juvenile cod Gadus morhua reared in the laboratory and fed either an aquafeed pellet or marine-based diet to determine trophic discrimination factors (TDFs) of stable carbon (δ13C) and nitrogen (δ15N) isotope values in white muscle tissue and baseline liver proportions of vegetable-oil based (VOB) fatty acids. We then used δ13C and δ15N and proportions of VOB fatty acids to investigate the dietary habits of wild cage-associated juvenile and adult Atlantic cod and adult Atlantic redfish Sebastes fasciatus. Cod and redfish were collected in the immediate area of sea cages and reference areas of no aquaculture production. Juvenile cod captured around sea cages had both elevated δ13C and δ15N values and proportions of VOB fatty acids, and isotopic fractionation comparable to laboratory cod fed an aquafeed diet. However, differences in δ13C and δ15N and proportions of VOB fatty acids between cage-associated and reference site adult cod and redfish were predominately absent. Results suggest that sea cages may provide an energetic subsidy to juvenile cod but perhaps not at the level to sustain adult cod or redfish. Therefore, the lack of differences suggests that both adult groups may be using cage sites opportunistically and only for short duration, as isotopic values and fatty acid proportions were not consistent with waste feed consumption despite individuals being collected in close proximity to sea cages.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".