Atlantic Rock Crab, unlike American Lobster, Is Important to Ecosystem Functioning in Northumberland Strait
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To compare the roles of American lobster Homarus americanus and Atlantic rock crab Cancer irroratus in the food web processes of a coastal ecosystem, distribution, abundance, stomach contents, diet overlap, and occurrence in stomachs of predators were described for the two species collected during July–August trawl surveys in Northumberland Strait, southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. Atlantic rock crab was more widely distributed, was more numerous on mud and muddy sand substrates, and occurred in deeper water than American lobster. Atlantic rock crab was the principal prey of American lobster while American lobster was almost never eaten by Atlantic rock crab. American lobster (benthic and pelagic stages) was a trace item in all fish and decapod stomachs examined except in those of the Shorthorn Sculpin Myoxocephalus scorpius and other American lobsters. In contrast, Atlantic rock crab larvae commonly occurred in stomachs of many pelagic fishes while small (<40 mm carapace width) benthic individuals were important prey of demersal fish species such as Winter Skate Leucoraja ocellata , Cunner Tautogolabrus adspersus , Longhorn Sculpin M. octodecemspinosus , and Shorthorn Sculpin. Atlantic rock crab had a broad diet consisting of fish, sevenspine bay shrimp Crangon septemspinosa , Atlantic rock crab (mostly cannibalism), bivalves, and polychaetes. American lobster had a narrow diet consisting mainly of Atlantic rock crab with lesser amounts of American lobster (old carapaces and cannibalism) and sea stars. Diet overlap between the two species was moderate and mainly due to joint consumption of Atlantic rock crab. Thus, Atlantic rock crab play a prominent role in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence food web (and therefore energy cycling) while American lobster serves mostly as an energy sink whose loss from the ecosystem would mainly affect people dependent upon the fishery. Received January 3, 2014; accepted May 30, 2014
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".