Reproductive cycles in tropical intertidal gastropods are timed around tidal amplitude cycles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Reproduction in iteroparous marine organisms is often timed with abiotic cycles and may follow lunar, tidal amplitude, or daily cycles. Among intertidal marine invertebrates, decapods are well known to time larval release to coincide with large amplitude nighttime tides, which minimizes the risk of predation. Such bimonthly cycles have been reported for few other intertidal invertebrates. We documented the reproduction of 6 gastropod species from Panama to determine whether they demonstrate reproductive cycles, whether these cycles follow a 2‐week cycle, and whether cycles are timed so that larval release occurs during large amplitude tides. Two of the species (Crepidula cf. marginalis and Nerita scabricosta) showed nonuniform reproduction, but without clear peaks in timing relative to tidal or lunar cycles. The other 4 species show clear peaks in reproduction occurring every 2 weeks. In 3 of these species (Cerithideopsis carlifornica var. valida, Littoraria variegata, and Natica chemnitzi), hatching occurred within 4 days of the maximum amplitude tides. Siphonaria palmata exhibit strong cycles, but reproduction occurred during the neap tides. Strong differences in the intensity of reproduction of Cerithideopsis carlifornica, and in particular, Littoraria variegata, between the larger and smaller spring tides of a lunar month indicate that these species time reproduction with the tidal amplitude cycle rather than the lunar cycle. For those species that reproduce during both the wet and dry seasons, we found that reproductive timing did not differ between seasons despite strong differences in temperature and precipitation. Overall, we found that most (4/6) species have strong reproductive cycles synchronized with the tidal amplitude cycle and that seasonal differences in abiotic factors do not alter these cycles.
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".