Quantifying factors influencing American lobster <i>(Homarus americanus)</i> predation on the invasive green crab <i>(Carcinus maenas)</i> in Newfoundland, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The European green crab (Carcinus maenas) is a newly invasive species in Newfoundland, where it has likely been present for ≤15 years. The green crab has been found in stomach contents of American lobster (Homarus americanus) in New England and Nova Scotia, Canada, but predation on this species has not yet been quantified in Newfoundland. We conducted feeding experiments to determine whether lobsters from Newfoundland were as likely as those from Nova Scotia (which have coexisted with green crabs for >60 years) to recognize and prey upon this new species. We also performed experiments to determine whether green crabs reach a size refuge from predation and whether factors including starvation, availability of alternate food sources, or habitat complexity would influence the probability of lobster attacking or feeding on green crabs. In our trials, lobster origin had no significant effect on crab predation; lobsters, irrespective of origin, were more likely to consume small (<40 mm carapace width [CW]) and medium (40–65 mm CW) crabs than larger (>65 mm CW) ones. Nevertheless, even small lobsters (73–76 mm carapace length, 300 g) were able to kill and consume the largest green crabs (78 mm CW, 100 g). Green crabs were less likely to be attacked or eaten when an alternative food source was present, suggesting that the lobsters were preying on the crabs, rather than simply killing them in a dispute over territory. The addition of a shelter provided a refuge for the green crabs; however, the crabs were only able to avoid being injured or eaten if this shelter was structurally complex. The green crab is slowly spreading westward around the island of Newfoundland, and so its long‐term effects, interactions with other organisms, and contribution to the diet of Newfoundland lobsters remain to be seen.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".