Lorica Trophic

Site condition baseline read off a collected food web. One station at a time: what the algae report, what the levels above them report, and how much of the answer the current sampling protocol can actually reach.
SYNTHETIC v0.9 · design
Arriving from the siting tool The collection design that would settle the copper question The siting tool draws its band on the assumption that a harvest clears a buyer's copper specification. That assumption is settled by assay on harvested tissue, and this page is the design for collecting it. Read the Protocol control as a line item, and the condition panel beneath the chart as what that line item buys. ← Back to where the line goes
Trophic position from δ15N against the producer baseline, 3.4‰ per level. Transfer factors are the ratio of consumer to prey tissue concentration.
Reading

Station geometry from lorica_map_v0_33. Method frame: DESIGN.md sections 4, 7, 8.
Condition panel · five indicators, no composite
?  How each number is made, and what would replace it

The generator is a stated model, not a fit. Each station carries four coefficients: vessel density, retention, anthropogenic nitrogen load, and legacy mercury. Producer tissue concentration rises with vessel density multiplied by retention, because leachate concentrates where boats are and water stays. Producer δ15N rises with the nitrogen load. Every level above the producer is that number multiplied by a transfer factor.

The three transfer regimes are the part worth arguing with, because they are the claim the buyer is being sold, and they are set by the evidence ledger rather than by taste. Mercury magnifies, which is the best-established result in the field. Zinc magnifies too, which is the correction this page shipped wrong in v0.1 to v0.4. Copper has no settled direction at all in a synthesis of 9,929 samples, so it is carried as unresolved with a wide band, and closing that band on one coast is the project. Crustaceans are the trap in the middle: a decapod holds copper and zinc near a constant for haemocyanin, so its box reports physiology. Those edges are still drawn, because hiding them would hide the trap, and they are held out of the transfer-regime statistic, which is the same conclusion stated twice.

ElementWhere it comes fromWhat replaces it
station coefficientsHand-set, matching the eight stations already on the Lorica mapMeasured vessel counts, LiveOcean residence time, the DGT array
δ15N baselineModelled from nitrogen loadEA-IRMS on the same Ulva tissue already going to the metals lab
trophic positionPost-style 3.4‰ enrichment per levelSite-fitted enrichment from the co-collected column
transfer factorsDirections set by Sun et al. 2020 per analyte (ledger T2 to T4), with a saturation term on copper that is this project's hypothesis and not a citation (T6)Fitted per station per analyte from co-collected pairs, with confidence intervals
producer conditionModelled growth against the light and temperature fieldTagged-thallus growth, which the protocol already collects for growth-dilution correction
assemblage compositionModelled from vessel density and retentionMulti-marker metabarcoding, already input community_composition

Where the claims are checked. Every regime, threshold and site fact on this page carries a row in projects/biofouling.evidence.md, with a verdict of VERIFIED, PARTLY-TRUE, INCORRECT, UNVERIFIABLE or UNVERIFIED and the correction where the claim was wrong. That ledger is what caught the zinc direction. The nine design-document claims in DESIGN.md Appendix A remain unchecked.

The rule this tool has to respect. DESIGN.md section 7.3 refuses arithmetic between accumulator classes, and a transfer factor is a cross-class ratio. The resolution used here: a factor is computed only within one station on one collection date, is carried with its uncertainty, and is compared between stations as rank order. Raw cross-class arithmetic stays forbidden.