Immersion in Neutral Red Solution as a Mass-Marking Technique to Study the Movement of the Amphipod Corophium Volutator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated the usefulness of immersion in neutral red solution as a marking technique for studies of movement of the amphipod Corophium volutator. Amphipods were immersed for 20 minutes in solutions of neutral red at different concentrations (25, 50 and |$100\, {\text{mg L}}^{- 1}$|). Amphipods incorporated dye at all concentrations, and the hepatopancreas remained distinctly stained red for at least 7 days. No increase in mortality was detected at any concentration when compared to a control treatment |$(0\, {\text{mg L}}^{- 1})$|. In a separate field experiment, staining did not significantly affect tendency of C. volutator to move. Overall, immersion in neutral red seems to be an appropriate technique to rapidly mark large numbers of C. volutator and is suitable for short-term mark-recapture experiments. This technique may also apply to other small-sized crustacean species with relatively transparent exoskeletons.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".