MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of Protein Source and Concentration on Somatic Growth of Juvenile Green Sea Urchins Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis

2007· article· en· W4234948533 on OpenAlexaff
Edward J. Kennedy, Shawn Robinson, G. J. Parsons, John D. Castell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the World Aquaculture Society · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal plant biology
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStrongylocentrotus droebachiensisBiologyJuvenileKelpCohortAnimal scienceSea urchinFisheryEcologyInternal medicineMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract— An important aspect in the development of any aquaculture industry is the maximization of juvenile somatic growth (i.e., body growth) to reduce production time and increase the size of the final product. In this study, green sea urchins Strongylocentrotus clroebachiensis were fed a prepared diet from 4 December 1998 to 10 September 1999 (i.e., 280 d) in a laboratory to investigate the effect of protein source (soybean andlor fish), protein concentration (20,30,40, and 50% dry mass) and juvenile size (4-8 mm and 12-20 mm initial test diameter) on somatic growth. A natural diet of Laminwia longicrurus (i.e., kelp) was used as a reference. There was no difference in initial size among the treatments for either the smaller cohort 1 or the larger cohort 2 sea urchins (6.3 mm and 13.8 mm initial average test diameter, respectively) (P > 0.05 for all tests). After 280 d, the sea urchins fed kelp had an average size of 20.7 mm and 24.5 mm (cohort 1 and cohort 2, respectively). The final average sizes of the sea urchins fed the prepared diets, which did not relate to dietary protein concentrations andlor protein source, ranged from 13.2 mm to 16.2 mm (cohort 1) and from 20.4 mm to 22.9 mm (cohort 2), and were significantly smaller than the kelpfed sea urchins (P < 0.05 and P < 0.001, cohort 1 and cohort 2, respectively). All treatments experienced 95% survivorship or greater. Sea urchin size appears to affect growth rate when optimal conditions for growth are available (i.e., diet and water temperature). As water temperatures increased during the summer of 1999, the sea urchins in cohort 1 fed kelp had a significantly higher growth rate (0.069 dd) than the cohort 2 kelpfed sea urchins (0.052 dd) (P < 0.05). However, within each cohort, there were no significant difference in growth rate (P > 0.05) among the sea urchins fed prepared diets, suggesting sea urchins do not require high concentrations of dietary protein for superior growth, and that plant protein can substitute fish protein in sea urchin diets. Furthermore, the sea urchins fed the prepared diets had poorer test quality and larger gonad yields (13-22%) compared to the kelpfed sea urchins (4.2%) and a wild sample of sea urchins of similar size (4.0%). The results suggest that the sea urchins fed the prepared diets allocated more energy to gonad production, whereas those fed a natural diet allocated more energy toward test production. To address this gap, more research is required to identify the nutritional components required for test growth that were present in kelp, but appeared to be deficient in the prepared diets.

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)0.001
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 score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations36
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the World Aquaculture SocietySame topicMarine and coastal plant biologyFrench-language works237,207