MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410436032 · doi:10.1038/s43247-025-02358-2

Intensive oyster farming enhances carbon storage in sediments over decades

2025· article· en· W4410436032 on OpenAlexafffund
Xin Sun, Ramón Filgueira, Yihua Sun, Ming Han, Qisheng Tang, Yao Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications Earth & Environment · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamics
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsOysterFisheryAgricultureEnvironmental scienceCarbon fibersIntensive farmingOceanographyBiologyGeologyEcologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clarifying the oyster’s carbon budget of their farming ecosystem defines this industry’s future. Through biodeposition, oyster enhances the vertical flux of organic carbon. However, the cycling of sedimented carbon before being separated from the biosphere remains unclear. Here, we constructed the chronologic profiles of the sediment cores from a typical oyster farm with approximately 50 years of farming history. The profiles corresponded with the farming development, environment, associated biogenic elements, and microbial communities. Our results showed the organic carbon burial flux after the onset of intensive farming increased 2.6-fold, reaching 106 g C·m−2·yr−1. Farming development drove the accumulation of microbial necromass, while the percentage of recalcitrant organic carbon in sediment organic carbon also increased from 42.52% to 60.19%. This study highlights the enhancement of carbon storage in response to the development of oyster farming, contributing to the understanding of the ecosystem-based carbon budget for oyster farming. Oyster farming can enhance organic carbon storage in sediments by increasing sediment organic carbon concentration up to 2.6 times, according to an analysis of 50 years of farming data from a typical oyster farm in Sanggou Bay, China.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.707

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 science0.0010.002
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 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

Citations17
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications Earth & EnvironmentSame topicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamicsFrench-language works237,207