Do parasites affect burrowing activity and emergence of sand hoppers, Talorchestia quoyana (Amphipoda: Talitridae)?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sand hoppers (Amphipoda: Talitridae) are semiterrestrial crustaceans that feed upon stranded kelp. Their burrowing behaviour plays an important role in reintroducing nutrients into the sediment. The most abundant sand hopper on New Zealand’s beaches is Talorchestia quoyana Milne-Edwards, 1840. It is host to a parasitic mermithid nematode, Thaumamermis zealandica Poinar, Latham and Poulin, 2002, which invariably kills its sand hopper host by emerging to complete its maturation and reproduction in a moist sand environment. The aim of the present study was to assess if the burrowing behaviour of Ta. quoyana showed pathologic consequences of infection by Th. zealandica. Two experiments were conducted to assess temporal variation in sand hopper burrowing in vitro. Parameters measured included the hour after sunrise and sunset that sand hoppers first emerged and the number of surface visits in the first hour after emergence. Across experiments, sand hopper burrowing behaviour showed considerable heterogeneity related to sand hopper length, sand hopper distribution, experimental series, and experimental moisture conditions. The presence of parasites was not a significant factor in determining sand hopper burrowing behaviour. The lack of pathological effect is surprising given the relative size of Th. zealandica.
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) | 0.001 | 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".