Use of a wave tank to study the effects of water motion and algal movement on the displacement of the sea star Asterias vulgaris towards its prey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MEPS Marine Ecology Progress Series Contact the journal Facebook Twitter RSS Mailing List Subscribe to our mailing list via Mailchimp HomeLatest VolumeAbout the JournalEditorsTheme Sections MEPS 258:125-132 (2003) - doi:10.3354/meps258125 Use of a wave tank to study the effects of water motion and algal movement on the displacement of the sea star Asterias vulgaris towards its prey Patrick Gagnon*, Giselle Wagner, John H. Himmelman Département de biologie & Québec-Océan, Université Laval, Québec, G1K 7P4 Québec, Canada *Email: patrick.gagnon@giroq.ulaval.ca ABSTRACT: We carried out experiments in a wave tank using a factorial design (in the presence and absence of waves and kelp blades) to evaluate the impact of water motion, and of wave-induced movement of kelp blades, on (1) movement of the predatory sea star Asterias vulgaris towards its prey, the blue mussel Mytilus edulis, and (2) on its success in capturing its prey. The wave tank mimicked the back-and-forth flow caused by waves. The displacement of the sea stars was 2 times greater in the absence than in the presence of waves. Movements of A. vulgaris were more directed towards the prey under back-and-forth water movement than under still conditions. The presence of kelp blades without waves also reduced the movement of sea stars towards prey as the sea stars largely stayed in the portion of the tank without kelp. Sea stars only became detached in treatments with waves, and a greater proportion detached when both waves and kelp were present. The success rate of sea stars in capturing mussels was null in the treatment with both waves and kelp. These observations support the hypothesis that the kelp canopy in shallow water, and movement of the kelp blades by waves, provide mussels with a spatial refuge from sea star predation. We show for the first time that a sea star can use distance chemodectection to localize prey under conditions of back-and-forth flow. KEY WORDS: Water motion · Kelp movement · Mussels · Mytilus edulis · Feeding ecology · Oscillatory flow · Alaria esculenta · Spatial refuge · Turbulence Full text in pdf format PreviousNextExport citation RSS - Facebook - Tweet - linkedIn Cited by Published in MEPS Vol. 258. Online publication date: August 29, 2003 Print ISSN: 0171-8630; Online ISSN: 1616-1599 Copyright © 2003 Inter-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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".