MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376269265 · doi:10.1016/j.jembe.2023.151916

Burrowing behaviour of soft-shell clams (Mya arenaria) following human disturbance

2023· article· en· W4376269265 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Tamara Ledoux, Jeff C. Clements, Daniel Gallant, Rémi Sonier, Gilles Miron

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsParks CanadaUniversité de MonctonFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersFisheries and Oceans Canada
KeywordsIntertidal zoneSedimentRocky shoreBivalviaBiologyShoreMolluscaEcologyFisheryOceanographyDisturbance (geology)GeologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The soft-shell clam, Mya arenaria, is an endobenthic marine bivalve species that is abundant in the intertidal and shallow-subtidal zones of eastern Canadian and New England shores. In these coastal environments, clams are subjected to both natural and anthropogenic disturbances that can result in dislodgement from the sediment. This is especially relevant for harvested clam species that are managed by a legal size limit. Herein, live clams that are too small to be retained by harvesters are discarded back onto the sediment surface. These clams must reburrow in order to survive; however, the reburrowing behaviour of these clams after being disturbed is not well known. To fill this knowledge gap, a series of five field trials were conducted in Kouchibouguac National Park, New Brunswick, Canada, during the summer and fall of 2021 to measure reburrowing rates of discarded sub-legal sized (<50 mm) soft-shell clams. Three size groups (20–30, 31–40, and 41–50 mm) of soft-shell clams were excavated and returned to the sediment surface at three different tidal levels inside protective enclosures during low tide for each trial. Time to initiate and complete reburrowing was subsequently observed over a 24 h (h) period. Results showed that reburrowing time was not affected by size class; however, reburrowing time was affected by tidal level, site, and trial. Results suggest that disturbed clams discarded onto submerged sediment surfaces (tidal levels 2 and 3) reburrow quicker than those discarded onto air-exposed sediment (tidal level 1). Reburrowing rates of subtidally-discarded clams were faster during the first three months of the study (June–August) compared to rates observed in the September trials. Comparing reburrowing rates to environmental conditions during the trials suggested that decreasing salinity in September likely drove the slower reburrowing rates compared to rates observed earlier in the season; decreasing temperatures may also have had some influence. These findings suggest that discarding sub-legal sized clams onto submerged sediment will increase the probability of clam survival via faster reburrowing, and that environmental conditions at the time of discard can affect reburrowing rates.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Marine Biology and EcologySame topicAquatic Invertebrate Ecology and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207