Aggregational behavior of the blue mussels Mytilus edulis and Mytilus trossulus: a potential pre-zygotic reproductive isolation mechanism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The blue mussels Mytilus edulis and Mytilus trossulus occur sympatrically and are able to hybridize in populations on the eastern coast of Newfoundland, Canada, presenting an opportunity to study their aggregational behavior. Aggregation behavior may therefore provide insight into post-settlement interactions and pre-zygotic reproductive isolation between the species. Three treatments were designed using M. edulis and M. trossulus to investigate their intraspecific and interspecific spatial distribution patterns. With Ripley’s K-function and Monte Carlo simulation analysis, we found that in the single-species treatment, M. edulis aggregated significantly but not M. trossulus. Based on results of two-way ANOVAs, both the number of aggregations and the moving distance were significantly affected by the treatments (single-species or mixed-species treatment) and times (24, 48, 72 and 96 h). In further pairwise comparisons using Tukey’s test, M. edulis aggregated differently with or without M. trossulus occupying the same tank, suggesting that the aggregational behavior of M. edulis could be driven by species-specific chemical cues. The result that M. edulis aggregates intraspecifically may increase the probability of intraspecific fertilization of the spawned gametes and thus function as a pre-zygotic reproductive isolation mechanism maintaining the blue mussel hybrid zone.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".