Seasonal and sexual differences in the thermal preferences and movements of American lobsters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thermal preferences of lobsters (Homarus americanus) were determined in the laboratory and compared with seasonal movements and distribution of lobsters in the Great Bay Estuary, New Hampshire. Lobsters preferred 11.0 ± 0.6 °C, or 2.8 ± 0.7 °C warmer than ambient temperature, during the colder months of the year. However, during the warmer months they selected 15.7 ± 0.4 °C, which was 0.2 ± 0.4 °C warmer than the ambient temperature. Overall, the lobsters tested had a final preferred temperature of 15.9 °C, and males selected warmer temperatures than females. Catch per unit effort was highest at sites where temperatures were similar to the temperatures lobsters preferred in the laboratory studies and lowest at sites ≥18 °C or <12 °C. Significantly more males than females were captured in areas with temperatures >16 °C. Lobsters tagged, and subsequently recaptured within 7–35 days, moved relatively little when released into areas where temperatures were similar to their preferred temperatures. Thermal preferences may influence the movement of lobsters in thermally heterogeneous habitats, and climate change is expected to have a major impact on lobster distribution, especially in estuarine and coastal habitats.
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 | 0.001 | 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".