Utilization of Algal Turf Scrubber Biomass in Sea Urchin ( <i>Lytechinus variegatus</i> ) Diets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the growth indices in sea urchins fed varying levels of algal turf scrubber (ATS) biomass for the partial replacement of dietary menhaden fishmeal. Juvenile Lytechinus variegatus were fed four formulated diets with differentiating levels of ATS biomass (10%, 10%, 20%, and 50%). Biomass was harvested from two ATS systems, one receiving treated wastewater effluent and the other incorporated into a hydroponics system. A 12‐week growth trial was conducted, and each sea urchin ( n = 100) was weighed and fed daily. Diets were formulated using Agri‐Data Systems Pro 5 (Version 2.41, Agri‐Data Systems). Four isonitrogenous and isocaloric diets were prepared. At the end of the growth trial, no significant differences were found in final weight, final diameter, and survival across all diets. All treatments performed well based on condition level and higher levels of ATS biomass did not indicate reduced growth or dietary utilization. Final weights of dry test, and dry gut, were not significantly different between treatments, except for dry gonad compared with menhaden fish meal. These findings indicate that in sea urchin diets, partial replacement of fish meal with ATS biomass is well tolerated.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".