Size- and sex-based habitat partitioning by Lepetodrilus fucensis near hydrothermal vents on the Juan de Fuca Ridge, Northeast Pacific
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines habitat partitioning by a hydrothermal vent limpet, Lepetodrilus fucensis, along environmental gradients and among vents with differing levels of flux. To test for spatial patterns in size structure, two distances from isolated vent flows were sampled (0–25 cm and 51–75 cm). Lepetodrilus fucensis displays a size gradient: juveniles are rare in flow (relative abundance < 5%, density = 56 ± 46 individuals·dm–2) and abundant peripherally (>95%, 2616 ± 2002 individuals·dm–2). Next, sex-based habitat partitioning was examined. High flux locations are female-biased (proportion male = 0.34 ± 0.07), whereas males are overrepresented peripherally and at waning vents (0.64 ± 0.08). The spatial mismatch between the sexes within a vent is driven by differential habitat occupation at decimetre scales. One hypothesis to explain this pattern is that females suffer a higher cost of reproduction and outcompete males for habitats with high food availability. Indeed, relatively higher percentages of females in waning vents had empty gonads in comparison with males (32%–78% vs. 0%–16%, respectively). Furthermore, females transplanted to the vent periphery for one year displayed much lower survivorship than males (2% vs. 27%). This finding suggests that differential survivorship between the sexes when food is limited can yield male-biased populations at waning vents.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".