Nutrient-Loading Mitigation by Shellfish Aquaculture in Semi-Enclosed Estuaries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bivalve aquaculture may provide a variety of ecosystem services including nitrogen extraction from estuaries, which are often subject to excess nutrient loading from various land activities, causing eutrophication. This nitrogen extraction may be affected by a combination of various non-linear interactions between the cultured organisms and the receiving ecosystem. The present study used a coupled hydro-biogeochemical model to examine the interactive effects of various factors on the degree of estuarine nutrient mitigation by farmed bivalves. These factors included bay geomorphology (leaky, restricted and choked systems), river size (small and large rivers leading to moderate (105.9 Mt N yr -1 ) and high (529.6 Mt N yr -1 ) nutrient discharges), bivalve species (blue mussel ( Mytilus edulis ) and eastern oyster ( Crassostrea virginica )), farmed bivalve area (0, 10, 25 and 40% of estuarine surface area) and climate change (water temperature, sea level and precipitation reflecting either present or future (Horizon 2050) conditions). Model outputs indicated that bivalve culture was associated with the retention of nitrogen within estuaries, but that this alteration of nitrogen exchange between estuaries and the open ocean was not uniform across all tested variables and it depended on the nature of their interaction with the bivalves as well as their own dynamics. When nitrogen extraction resulting from harvest was factored in, however, bivalve culture was shown to provide a net nitrogen removal in the majority of the tested model scenarios. Mussels provided more nutrient mitigation than oysters, open systems were more resilient to change than closed ones, and mitigation potential was shown to generally increase with increasing bivalve biomass. Under projected future temperature conditions, nutrient mitigation from mussel farms was predicted to increase, while interactions with the oyster reproductive cycle led to both reduced harvested biomass and nutrient mitigation potential. This study presents the first quantification of the effects of various biological, physical, geomorphological and hydrodynamical processes on nutrient mitigation by bivalve aquaculture and will be critical in addressing questions related to eutrophication mitigation by bivalves and prediction of possible nutrient trading credits.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".