Comparing methods for measuring egestion in aquatic animals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Most aquatic research on animal waste production evaluates excretion and not egestion, as it is difficult both to collect feces and to accurately analyze its nutrient content. This limits our understanding of how individuals process their dietary nutrients and how animal waste production impacts ecosystems. In this study, we systematically analyzed whether incubation experiments effectively quantify egestion (at high and low temperatures), estimated fecal phosphorus (P) leaching, and evaluated foregut‐hindgut analyses as a complementary method. Incubations were superficially effective but were flawed. Although 82% of fish in high‐temperature incubations and 75% of fish in low‐temperature incubations egested in 24 h, a minority of fish cleared their guts (38% at high temperatures and 6% at low temperatures), making analyzing full nutrient input and output impossible. Furthermore, feces leached P rapidly and variably; a field population's and an experimental population's feces leached 41% and 75% of their initial P respectively. This suggests that previous egestion research that does not measure leaching underestimates fecal nutrient content. Foregut‐hindgut analyses are unaffected by leaching and so effectively complemented incubations. These analyses provided enough hindgut material to estimate fecal %P and allowed us to estimate both dietary nutrient intake (when unknown) and the relative quantity of P in the diet and in the feces. Overall, we suggest that future researchers combine incubations and foregut‐hindgut analyses to estimate aquatic animal waste production.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".