Microplastic fibres in Pacific sand lance (Ammodytes personatus) burying habitats in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ingestion of Microplastic fibres (MF) by forage fish is of growing concern, as these MF have the potential to inhibit ingestion of nutrients, as well as accumulate and magnify at higher trophic levels. In the Strait of Georgia (SoG) on the Pacific Coast of Canada, such accumulation could be significant to the Pacific sand lance (PSL) (Ammodytes personatus), a key food source for marine predators such as Pacific salmon, seabirds, and marine mammals. The Pacific sand lance lacks a swim bladder and must bury in shallow low silt, medium coarse sand patches, and these sedimentary habitats may have high MF concentrations. This research assesses MF concentrations in PSL shallow subtidal burying habitats. Seafloor sediment samples were collected in Spring-Fall 2017, using a Van Veen grab sampler. Samples were collected at distances ranging from ~850 m to 20 kilometers from shore and effluent discharge pipes, and water depths ranging from 5 m to 100 m below the surface. MF concentrations were determined from 112 sediment samples in the laboratory using density extraction methods, while controlling for contamination. We found significantly higher concentrations of MF in suitable PSL burying habitat than in not suitable PSL habitat. Highly suitable PSL habitat had an average of 4.6 MF 10 g-1 and a median of 2.3 MF 10 g-1. A Kruskal Wallis test revealed that these values were significantly greater than in samples located in non-suitable PSL habitat, which had an average of 1.2 MF 10 g-1 and a median of 0.3 MF 10 g-1 (p = 3.5x10-5, 0-15 fibres 10 g-1). Additionally, we observed higher concentrations in shallow water depths (<40 m) than in deeper water depths (>40 m). Congruently, we found distance from estuaries and sewage outflows, as well as proportion of very fine sand in sediment, to be related to MF concentration in seafloor sediment in the SoG. The high concentrations of MF in suitable PSL habitat found in this study could potentially have implications for PSL, such as MF ingestion and the consequent inability to digest organic foods due to the blockage of the digestive tract by MF.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".