SEDIMENT SELECTION BY JUVENILE SEA SCALLOPS (CANCER IRRORATUS SAY)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined sediment selection by juvenile sea scallops (Placopecten magellanicus) and their predators, sea stars (Asterias vulgaris) and rock crabs (Cancer irroratus). In laboratory trials, groups of scallops (~30 mm shell height) were simultaneously offered four sediment types in the presence and absence of a sea star or a rock crab: (1) glass representing a homogeneous, hard bottom; (2) sand; (3) granule and (4) pebble. As well, individual predators were offered the four sediment types without scallops. The number of scallops and the proportion of time predators spent on each sediment type were monitored over time. When compared with the expected distribution, scallops avoided glass and tended to select granule and pebble sediments when alone. In the presence of a rock crab, scallops also avoided glass. However, scallop distribution was similar to the expected distribution when a sea star was present, because sea star encounters are an important trigger of scallop swimming, leading to frequent redistribution of scallops. Sea stars spent less time than expected on glass, whereas crabs spent more time than expected on sand. For both predators, distribution did not change significantly in the presence or absence of scallops. In sum, scallop distribution appears more dependent on predator distribution than the reverse. Predation of scallops by sea stars and rock crabs was not influenced by sediment type. Our results have implications for the bottom culture of scallops. Because scallops select heterogeneous sediments over homogeneous ones, dispersal of scallops may be important on unsuitable sediments. Also, dispersal may be higher when sea stars are present at an aquaculture site.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 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".