Light traps as a tool to sample pelagic larvae of American lobster (Homarus americanus)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We built a simple and relatively inexpensive light trap and tested its efficacy at catching pelagic larvae of the American lobster Homarus americanusMilne Edwards, 1837 in the field and the laboratory. We were particularly interested in assessing the potential of using these traps to support research on pelagic-benthic coupling, and therefore contrasted the abundance of postlarvae in the light traps to spatial variability in postlarval settlement. In laboratory experiments, |$55\% $| of postlarvae placed in 1 m diameter tanks were caught by the light traps, and |$24\% $| of postlarvae placed inside the light traps escaped, over a 24-hour period. In the field, the light traps caught lobster larval stages I and IV (the postlarva), but no stage II or III larvae. Catches of lobster postlarvae were lower than in previously published larval tow studies when standardizing for the amount of time the sampling devices spent in the water, but were roughly similar to these when standardized for the number of work hours required to obtain the samples. The light traps also caught a suite of other invertebrates, such as northern krill and all larval stages of the green crab and Atlantic rock crab, as well as some fish, such as juvenile lumpfish. The abundance of stage IV lobster postlarvae was significantly related to spatial variability in settlement, but unsurprisingly that of stage I larvae was not. Our results suggest that light traps may eventually provide an additional tool to sample lobster larvae and postlarvae, which may be particularly useful to study pelagic-benthic coupling as this passive sampling device better lends itself to the simultaneous sampling of many areas than do larval tows. However, we believe further lab and field experiments investigating modified trap designs, optimal soak time, and effect of depth, should be conducted to improve the efficacy of this new tool in American lobster research.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".