The utility of wax replicas as a measure of crab attack frequency in the rocky intertidal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crabs are thought to play a vital role in structuring gastropod populations. Studies quantifying the frequencies with which crabs attack gastropods in natural settings are, however, scarce. Although a wide variety of techniques exist with which predator–prey interactions can be investigated (e.g. laboratory experiments, exclusion caging, tethering and population surveys), there is a need for methods that can provide large amounts of quantitative data, particularly documenting the frequency with which crabs attack gastropods. This study examines the utility of using wax replicas of gastropods to determine crab attack frequencies. Replicas ofChlorostoma funebralis, Nucella ostrinaandNucella lamellosawere bolted to mesh screens and deployed in the rocky intertidal. Crabs attacked wax replicas of gastropods, leaving characteristic marks in the wax. In most cases, the appendage used in the attack could be identified from the marks (i.e. chelae vs walking legs). The effectiveness of this technique was verified using surveys of repair scar frequencies of the gastropod populations; patterns in attack frequency, determined from the number of marked wax replicas, were consistent with those of repair frequency, in that both were greater at the wave protected, quiet water locality. This study confirms the value of wax replicas in investigations of crab predation to determine the frequency and type of attack, and illustrates the potential of this method for quantifying predation intensity. The development of techniques that quantify the magnitude and exact nature of the effects of crab predation on intertidal communities is pivotal, given the intensity of commercial fishing of some species of crabs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".