Egg Development Trajectories of Early and Late-Spawner Lobsters (Homarus Americanus) in the Magdalen Islands, Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines egg development in American lobster (Homarus americanus) ovigerous females caught off the Magdalen Islands (MI), Québec, in September 2002 and kept in tanks for 10-11 months under a simulated natural temperature cycle. The study compares egg development trajectories of 7 early-spawners (ES) that had a well-defined pigmented eye area (Perkins eye index, PEI: |$190-246\,{\rm{\mu m}}$|) at the time of capture and 8 late-spawners (LS) with no visible pigmented eye at the time of capture. Eggs from ES achieved about 80% of their development in the fall, followed by a circa 6-months rest period. Eggs from LS reached approximately 50% development by late fall, and unlike eggs from ES, continued development during winter even at temperatures of |${\rm{1}}.0 - {\rm{1}}.{\rm{5}}^\circ {\rm{C}}$|. The two groups experienced different numbers of effective |$\left( { > {\rm{ 3}}.{\rm{4}}^\circ {\rm{C}}} \right)$| degree-days (ES: 1440.7, LS: 1308.0) for complete embryonic development and late spawning translated into late hatching. Additional observations made on a group of 72 ovigerous MI females caught in September 2006 indicate that early spawning is mainly associated to larger females, most likely multiparous, with a 2-year reproductive cycle, and late spawning mainly to smaller females, most likely primiparous, with a 1-year cycle, molting and spawning the same year. Larvae from ES/multiparous and LS/primiparous may therefore encounter different environmental conditions for survival at hatching and during larval development. The occurrence of females having different patterns of egg development trajectories in American lobster populations can help spread larval production over time. This can be viewed as a mechanism for coping with environmental uncertainty.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".