Effects of ancient anthropogenic clam gardens on the growth, survival, and transcriptome of Pacific littleneck clams ( <i>Leukoma staminea</i> )
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Clam gardens traditionally established and maintained by coastal Indigenous Peoples of northwest North America are habitat modifications to enhance intertidal clam productivity for reliable local food production. In this study, phenotypic and transcriptomic responses of Pacific littleneck clams ( Leukoma staminea ) were evaluated 16 weeks after transplantation to either unmaintained clam gardens or reference (unmodified) clam beaches. Beach sediment characteristics including grain size and organic content were examined across all beaches. Large differences in abiotic characteristics and phenotypic responses were observed among beaches; however, differences were not related to the clam garden/reference beach effect. Clam survival and growth were negatively associated with small rocks, very fine sand, and silt, along with carbonate and organic content, and positively associated with coarse sand, sand, and fine sand. To investigate molecular responses to unmaintained clam gardens, a de novo transcriptome containing 52,000 putative transcripts was assembled for L. staminea and was used to test for differential expression between transplanted clams in unmaintained clam gardens or on reference beaches. As expected, given the lack of significant phenotypic differences between treatments, transcriptomic responses to unmaintained clam gardens were minor, although several weakly-associated transcripts were identified. By contrast, the strong survival gradient across beaches was used to identify genes associated with survival and, combined with characterization of tissue-specific expression in the gill and digestive gland, contributes to our understanding of molecular processes in this non-model species.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".