Epibionts of Sympatric Species of Cancer Crabs in Barkley Sound, British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The diversity, abundance and spatial distribution of macro-epibionts colonizing the graceful crab, Cancer gracilis, the red rock crab, Cancer productus, and the Dungeness crab Cancer magister were examined. These three crab species were common in Barkley Sound, British Columbia, occurring sympatrically across much of their range. Twenty nine epibiont species, representing ten different phyla were found. Thirty three percent of Cancer gracilis, 49% of Cancer magister and 68% of Cancer productus possessed one or more epibiont species. Cancer gracilis was the least speciose, while Cancer productus exhibited the greatest diversity of epibiont species. Male crabs were larger than females and had a greater species richness and diversity of epibionts. Epibionts were largely absent on juvenile crabs; in adult crabs, occurrence increased with crab size. Barnacles were the most common epibiont; the majority were Balanus crenatus, which predominated on the dorsal surfaces of the cephalothorax of each crab species. Green, red and brown algae were also common, the majority of which (>80%) were found on the antennae of the crabs. Tube-dwelling polychaete worms were less abundant, showing a preference for the ventral surfaces of the crabs. Hydrozoan colonies were found on only 7% of all the crabs examined, mostly settling on the ventral surfaces and limbs. Bryozoans were only found on Cancer productus and Cancer magister. The majority were the encrusting Membranipora membranacea. Unlike the above taxa, bryozoans showed no clear preference for a specific area of the carapace. Organisms in the phyla Urochordata, Mollusca and Porifera were only found on a few individual Cancer magister and Cancer productus. The distribution of each epibiont species is discussed in relation to larval settlement patterns and ecological, morphological and behavioural differences among the three host 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".