Coast Salish foods gathered on clam gardens and rocky intertidal beaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous Peoples have been gathering foods using traditional technologies since time immemorial. Indigenous Peoples are intertwined with the environment by practicing traditional technologies and transmitting Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) within their communities. Since the beginning of time Indigenous People have interworking relationships with the natural world, these relationships are a result of thousands of years of transmitting TEK about the environment and traditional food systems. Clam gardens are one example of traditional mariculture that increases the optimal habitat for clams, increases biomass, and clam density. In addition to clam garden beaches providing productive habitats for clams, the clam garden rock wall is an intertidal structure that houses several species of non-clam, rock-dwelling Coast Salish foods. Research including clam gardens include many studies on clams. This research is focused on understanding the complexity and environmental parameters of rocky beaches and clam garden rock walls and how these factors influence the availability of non-clam Coast Salish foods. Our guiding research question was: Do habitat complexity, biotic, and abiotic factors influence the availability of intertidally sourced Coast Salish foods? We hypothesized that temperature would influence biomass. Additionally, we hypothesized that transects with greater habitat complexity (measured in rugosity) would have greater biomass. We also predicted that clam garden rock walls would have greater Coast Salish food availability because the rock walls are complex places to house rock dwelling species. We conducted 10 x 2 meter intertidal transect beach surveys to compare the available Coast Salish foods that can be harvested from clam garden rock walls and rocky intertidal beaches. Surveys included measuring habitat complexity using a rugosity chain, measuring water flow, and identifying and measuring the length of the invertebrates included in this study. These surveys were conducted in the traditional territory of the Hul'qumi'num and WSÁNEĆ communities, whose territory includes what is now called the Southern Gulf Islands of B.C., Canada. Hul'qumi'num communities include Cowichan Tribes, Halalt, Lyackson, Ts'uubaa-asatx, Stz'uminus, and Penelakut First Nations. The WSÁNEĆ communities, which includes Tsartlip, Tseycum, Pauquachin, and Tsawout First Nations. Increased research on Coast Salish food availability (defined as biomass) on clam garden rock walls and rocky intertidal beaches demonstrates how abiotic and biotic factors influence the biomass of intertidally gathered Coast Salish foods. Intertidally sourced foods gathered in rocky habitats and clam garden rock walls at low tide include green sea urchins (Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis), rough keyhole limpets (Diodora aspera), gumboot chitons (Cryptochiton stelleri), and red rock crabs (Cancer productus). We performed 38 intertidal surveys and measured the length of over 600 individual invertebrates, habitat complexity, temperature, algae cover, salinity, and dissolved oxygen. Additionally, we performed a clod card experiment to estimate water flow. A length to weight linear regression analysis was used to determine the biomass of each species and the biomass of all individuals was combined to get the total food availability (biomass) for each transect. We hypothesized that food availability would be influenced by habitat complexity and temperature, and that clam garden rock walls would have similar characteristics to the beaches with high habitat complexity. Included in this study are fifteen species of Coast Salish foods. We used linear models to estimate the biomass of each species. A generalized linear model was used to analyze the data, which revealed that transects with greater habitat complexity and lower water flow had greater biomass, this includes transects that are both clam garden rock wall transects and non-wall rocky beaches. This study shows the cultural importance of clam gardens and Coast Salish foods gathered from rocky beaches and how habitat complexity and waterflow influence Coast Salish intertidal food availability.
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) | 0.007 | 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".