ECOSYSTEM MODELING: A TOOL TO UNDERSTAND THE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN EXTRACTIVE AND FED AQUACULTURE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Yarish, C. 1, Rawson, Jr. M. V.2, Chopin, T.3, Wang, D. R.4, Chen, C.4, Carmona, R.1, Chen, C.5 , Wang, L.4, Ji , R.5 and Sullivan, J.5 1University of Connecticut, Stamford, Connecticut 06901‐2315, USA; 2Georgia Sea Grant College Program, Athens, GA 30602‐3636, USA; 3University of New Brunswick, Saint John, NB, E2L 4L5, Canada; 4Marine and Fishery Dept. of Hainan Province, Haikou, Hainan, P. R. China; 5The University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602‐3636, USA One of the most difficult tasks resource managers face is understanding the carrying capacity of coastal waters for aquaculture. Aquaculture, like many other human activities, can threaten coastal waters. Aquaculture producing shrimp and finfish depends on supplemental feeding and can contribute to eutrophication. A second type, involving shellfish and macroalgae, extracts plankton and nutrients from surrounding waters, and can have a significant positive impact on moderately eutrophic waters. Ecosystem modeling offers a 3‐dimensional physical, chemical and biological simulation that can help understand and predict the impacts of aquaculture on coastal embayments. Such a model is being explored for Xincun Bay (22 km2), which is located in southeastern Hainan Province, China. Aquaculture in Xincun Bay includes 6500 fish pens, 100 ha of shrimp ponds, pearl oyster culture rafts and Kappaphycus alvarezii culture that produces 2,000 mt (Oct.‐May). The surrounding area has ~ 15,000 people and Xincun City is a major offshore fishing and tourist center. The annual nitrogen and phosphorus removal capacity of Kappaphycus in Xincun Bay may have been in the order of 53.8 and 3.7 mt, respectively, during the 1999‐2000 growing season. Lian Bay (~ 15 km2), a nearby bay with only Kappaphycus and pearl oyster culture (and little anthropogenic input), has a macroalgal production of 1,500 mt annually. The annual nitrogen and phosphorus removal capacity of Kappaphycus here may have been in the order of 25 and 0.33 mt, respectively. Our prototype model may hold the promise for showing the importance of integrating seaweed culture activities in the maintenance and health of coastal embayments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".