Predator-induced shell plasticity in mussels hinders predation by drilling snails
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Sessile invertebrate prey that detect waterborne predator cues often respond by strengthening their structural defenses. Experimental evidence of the functional significance of such modifications using field-raised organisms is lacking. This study addresses that gap using intertidal mussels and predatory dogwhelks from Atlantic Canada. During the spring and summer of 2016, we ran a field experiment that manipulated dogwhelk presence to test their nonconsumptive effects on mussel traits. Dogwhelk cues elicited thickening at the lip, centre, and base of mussel shells, although simultaneously limiting shell growth in length. As shell mass was unaffected by dogwhelk presence, a trade-off between shell thickening and elongation was revealed. Thickening was strongest at the thinnest parts of the shell. Using the field-raised organisms, a lab experiment found that dogwhelks took, on average, 55 % longer to drill and consume mussels previously exposed to dogwhelk cues than mussels grown without such a cue exposure. Dogwhelks drilled at the thinnest parts of the shell but, nonetheless, the consumed cue-exposed mussels had thicker shells at the borehole than the consumed mussels not exposed to cues, which likely explains the observed difference in handling time. As handling time normally decreases predation success, this study indicates that the plastic structural modifications in mussels triggered by dogwhelk cues in the field hinder predation by these drilling predators.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".