Crustaceans associated with the deep-water gorgonian corals <i>Paragorgia arborea</i> (L., 1758) and <i>Primnoa resedaeformis</i> (Gunn., 1763)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To explore the crustacean fauna associated with deep-water gorgonian corals, suction samples were taken from colonies of Paragorgia arborea and Primnoa resedaeformis using a Remotely Operated Vehicle. Seven colonies of P. arborea and eight of P. resedaeformis were sampled from 330–500 m depth in the Northeast Channel off Nova Scotia. A total of 17 species were identified as being associated with the corals. The P. arborea fauna was richer than the P. resedaeformis fauna in both abundance and number of species, with 1303 versus 102 individuals and 16 versus seven species, respectively. However, 13 of the species associated with P. arborea were from hydroids attached to the coral. Amphipods dominated the fauna both in abundance and numbers of species and the most common species were Metopa bruzelii, Stenopleustes malmgreni, Proboloides calcarata and Aeginella spinosa. The isopod Munna boecki and the cirripede Ornatoscalpellum stroemii were also quite common. The most strongly associated crustaceans were two parasitic poecilostomatid copepods; these are common also on tropical gorgonians and are most likely obligate associates. The frequently occurring shrimp Pandalus propinquus probably avoids predation by seeking protection among the coral branches. Shrimp counts from video records showed that visual inspection without physically disturbing colonies will generally not reveal the crustaceans hidden in coral colonies. The galatheid Eumunida picta was observed on P. resedaeformis colonies. The fauna of the deep-water gorgonians corresponded to the fauna of tropical shallow-water gorgonians in the numerical dominance of amphipods and parasitic copepods; however, species richness is higher and decapods, which constitute a rich fauna on tropical gorgonians, were only represented by two species.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".