MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103765194 · doi:10.2983/035.033.0218

Predation of Sea Scallops and Other Indigenous Bivalves by Invasive Green Crab,<i>Carcinus maenas</i>, from Newfoundland, Canada

2014· article· en· W2103765194 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kyle Matheson, Cynthia H. McKenzie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Shellfish Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine Bivalve and Aquaculture Studies
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersDivision of Ocean SciencesMemorial University of Newfoundland
KeywordsScallopCarcinus maenasBiologyFisheryPredationDecapodaCrustaceanEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Populations of green crab (Carcinus maenas) have expanded within Newfoundland, and this has raised concern from fish harvesters and scientists regarding bivalve predation in coastal areas on species such as juvenile sea scallops (Placopecten magellanicus). We used 2 microcosm experiments to determine (1) the effects of water temperature (5°C and 12°C) on scallop predation; (2) scallop size selection in small and large green crabs and a large indigenous predator, the rock crab (Cancer irroratus); and (3) bivalve prey selection in large green crabs between softshell clams (Mya arenaria), blue mussels (Mytilus edulis), and sea scallops. Overall, green and rock crabs captured 4 times more scallops in warm water (12°C) than cold (5°C). Large green (60–70 mm) and rock (75–90 mm) crabs captured similar numbers of scallops, selected medium-size (30–40 mm) scallops, and avoided small (10–20 mm) scallops. Small green crabs (40–50 mm) captured only small scallops. Large green crabs selected softshell clams and blue mussels over scallops. Overall, our research demonstrated that both green and rock crabs can prey on similar sizes of scallops, and suggests that green crabs may be a new predation threat to the shallow coastal scallop populations in Newfoundland.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.193
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Shellfish ResearchSame topicMarine Bivalve and Aquaculture StudiesFrench-language works237,207