MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379645250 · doi:10.1002/naaq.10294

Formulated feeds prolong the reproductive period of a cultured echinoid

2023· article· en· W4379645250 on OpenAlexafffund
Emily M. Warren, Lyanne J. F. Curtis, Stephen F. Cross, Stefanie D. Duff, Christopher M. Pearce

Bibliographic record

VenueNorth American Journal of Aquaculture · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal plant biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaVancouver Island UniversityFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersFisheries and Oceans Canada
KeywordsBiologyGonadSpawn (biology)Strongylocentrotus droebachiensisBroodstockKelpSea urchinFisheryAnimal scienceDevelopment of the gonadsSexual maturityZoologyEcologyAquacultureAnatomyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective The production of echinoid larvae and juveniles is required in both wild-population enhancement programs and full life-cycle culture. Many echinoid species of commercial interest spawn only once or twice a year, however, restricting temporal access to viable broodstock. High-energy/high-protein formulated feeds have been used for gonad enhancement of a variety of echinoid species, but the goal of that activity has always been to produce premature gonads, which the market requires, not the production of mature gonads for breeding. The present investigation, originally established to examine gonad enhancement, took advantage of a spawning event to assess the efficacy of a formulated feed to extend the spawning period or reduce gonad recovery time after spawning in a commercially relevant echinoid, the green sea urchin Strongylocentrous droebachiensis. Methods Urchins held in suspended sea cages were fed either a formulated, commercial, pelleted urchin diet or bull kelp Nereocystis luetkeana over 12 weeks, with survival, somatic growth, gonad quantity (wet weight, yield), and gonad quality (presence/absence of gametes) being examined over time. Result Survivorship after 12 weeks was high, little difference being observed between the two diets (mean ± SE: 98.2 ± 1.1% and 95.9 ± 1.9% for kelp and formulated feed, respectively). There was no significant difference in somatic growth between the two treatments, but the formulated feed led to significantly higher gonad wet weight and yield than kelp at the end of the study. When compared with kelp, the formulated feed may have led to earlier spawning and quicker gonad recovery and prevented the complete spawning of all urchins, thus extending the period of gamete availability. Conclusion Formulated feeds may have the potential to maintain reproductively active broodstock over an extended time, allowing expansion of the period in which echinoid larvae and juveniles can be produced.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNorth American Journal of AquacultureSame topicMarine and coastal plant biologyFrench-language works237,207