Ancestral and contemporary intertidal mariculture practices support marine biodiversity in the northeast Pacific
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The cultivation of seafood now outpaces extraction from wild populations. This novel state in the history of human-marine ecosystem interactions highlights the importance of identifying cultivation practices that balance production and conservation. Here, we test the hypothesis that two shellfish cultivation practices, one that spans decades and the other millennia, bolsters habitat complexity, which increases epifaunal (surface) invertebrate diversity. To do so, we conducted multiple surveys of 24 First Nations clam gardens, shellfish aquaculture farms, and non-walled or unmodified beaches along the west coast of Canada. We show that habitat alterations specific to each cultivation practice restructure epifaunal communities at several ecological and spatial scales. Distinct communities within clam gardens and shellfish farms are a function of habitat complexity at 25–50 and 50–100 cm resolutions and changes in the amount of gravel, bivalve shells, and seaweeds. Our findings highlight how resource cultivation can contribute to achieving sustainable human-ecosystem interactions.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".