Mitigation measures to reduce the risk of introduction and spread of AIS through Shellfish and Macroalgal Movements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shellfish and macroalgal movements are a known vector for the introduction and spread of Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS). Physical or chemical treatments are one means to reduce this risk, although a comprehensive review of the effectiveness of available options has not been conducted in Canada. To understand the effectiveness and limitations of these various treatments, a literature review of existing options was conducted. That review covered both mortality/removal of AIS and survival of shellfish and macroalgal species being moved. No single treatment was found applicable to all AIS while also maintaining shellfish survival in the context of species movements. Numerous physical and chemical treatment options were identified as being effective (100% mortality/removal) at killing/removing specific AIS. Numerous physical and chemical treatment options were identified as having no/low impacts (≥90% survival) on moved shellfish species, while impacts on moved macroalgae remain a significant gap. Only a few physical and chemical treatment options applicable to multiple AIS, while keeping moved shellfish species alive, were identified (see Tables 3 and 4). There are a number of considerations that may limit the usefulness of those treatments in real-world settings or for other AIS or shellfish and macroalgal species. Key uncertainties include comparing results between taxa, field and laboratory studies, and different experimental designs, scales, and methods of measuring AIS mortality and the use of quantitative and qualitative data. This literature review identified a significant number of gaps (e.g., longer-term impacts on moved species, lack of data on macroalgae, lack of information at commercial scales) with respect to the effectiveness of physical and chemical treatments on specific AIS and their impacts on moved species (shellfish and macroalgae), especially combined treatment options (e.g., heat and chemical applications). Additional considerations such as taxa, season, and site-specific characteristics (e.g., temperature, salinity, pH, humidity) will need to be considered when applying this advice.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".