Morphological and trophic differences between kelp crabs (Pugettia producta) inhabiting kelp and pilings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals within a species may specialize on fine-scale habitats, allowing them to exploit different opportunities for foraging, resting and refuge, and reproduction.Kelp crabs (Pugettia producta) in Puget Sound can be observed on both bull kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana) and dock pilings, with unknown implications for function and behavior.In this study, we investigated how the morphology and diet of kelp crabs living on bull kelp and on pilings differs.We collected 30 kelp crabs from each habitat and measured their carapace width, leg length, and color.Additionally, we performed stable isotope analysis to determine possible diet sources of the crabs in each habitat.We found distinctions between individuals using different habitats in carapace width and leg length but not color.Kelpdwelling crabs had greater carapace width and shorter legs relative to their body size than piling-dwelling crabs, but the crabs in different habitats did not vary in redness.We also observed sexual dimorphism: male crabs had smaller carapaces and longer legs relative to their body size and were more red than females.Varying leg length between habitats could be due to grasping ability: longer legs may be better to grab wide pilings, while short legs may be beneficial for holding narrow bull kelp stipes.Differences in size between habitats could be due to variations in pressures including food availability, predation, and human disturbance that could impact the growth and mortality rates of crabs.There were no conclusive differences in diet between kelp-and piling-dwelling crabs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".