MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391298244 · doi:10.5376/ija.2024.14.0002

Effect of Storage Density and Temperature on the Survival and Fatty Acid Profiles of Cyclopoid Copepods

2024· article· en· W4391298244 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gerald Kwikiriza, Ronald Semyalo, Gladys Bwanika, Alex Barekye, Justus Kwetegyeka, Andrew Arinaitwe Izaara, Ivan Abaho

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Aquaculture · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquaculture Nutrition and Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFatty acidBiologyChemistryFood scienceBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cyclopoid copepods ( Thermocyclop sp.) have the nutritional attributes of an ideal diet for fish larvae. However, long-term production and availability of copepods for feeding larval fish in hatcheries remain a challenge. The present study investigated the effect of density and temperature on survival and fatty acid profiles of Thermocyclop sp. at densities: 1 000, 3 000, and 5 000 individuals/L and temperatures: 4 °C, 8 °C, and 12 °C. A log-rank test showed a significant difference between the percentage survival of Thermocyclop sp. at 12 °C and 4 °C ( P <0.001) and a significantly higher survival at 1 000 than at 5 000 individuals/L ( P <0.001). Generally, saturated fatty acids (SFAs) were dominant compared to monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs) and polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs). For essential fatty acids, no significant differences were observed between storage temperatures on the 7th and 14th days of the experiment. The results demonstrated that at least a 50% survival rate is obtained when these organisms are stored at 12 °C with a density of 1 000 individuals/L for 14 days, with no significant changes in fatty acid profiles. Further studies are necessary to determine the effect of increased storage conditions, perhaps with aeration, on storage time.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.249
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of AquacultureSame topicAquaculture Nutrition and GrowthFrench-language works237,207