Ancient clam gardens increased production: Adaptive strategies from the past can inform food security today
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maintaining food production while sustaining productive ecosystems is among the central challenges of our time, yet it has been for millennia.We quantified the productivity of ancient clam gardens, intertidal rock-walled terraces made by humans, by comparing the biomass and density of surveyed bivalves and growth rates of transplanted Leukoma staminea (littleneck clams) at replicate clam garden and non-walled beaches in British Columbia, Canada.We found that clam gardens had significantly shallower slopes, significantly greater densities of L. staminea and Saxidomus giganteus, and higher growth of transplanted L. staminea.As predicted, productivity varied as a function of tidal height, beach position and size class.Consequently, we provide strong empirical and experimental evidence that ancient clam gardens likely increased clam productivity by altering beach slope, expanding optimal intertidal habitat thereby enhancing growing conditions for clams.These results reveal how a traditional form of mariculture can inform resilient food security strategies today.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".