Supplementation with effective microorganisms in earthen ponds affects common carp growth but not overall microbial communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Probiotics are increasingly explored in aquaculture to enhance fish health and growth without leaving harmful residues. However, their efficacy in real-world pond environments remains poorly understood. Here, we conducted a 103-day field experiment to assess the effects of two effective microorganisms commercial products supplementations on microbial communities and growth performance of common carp ( Cyprinus carpio ). Effective microorganisms were added both to feed and directly to pond water. Microbial diversity was analysed using 16S rRNA and whole-genome shotgun sequencing across three environments – water (three time points), sediment (two time points) and fish intestine (one time point) – from 25 experimental ponds. Bioinformatics processing involved QIIME2 and MG-TK pipeline with taxonomic classification based on the SILVA database. The results showed that although supplemented bacterial families did not establish significantly in pond environments, fish exposed to specific effective microorganisms treatments exhibited improved growth metrics. These findings suggest that effective microorganisms can enhance carp growth in aquaculture without significantly altering resident microbial communities, offering a promising residue-free alternative to traditional additives.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".