Evidence that mud seafloor serves as recruitment habitat for settling and early benthic phase of the American lobster Homarus americanus H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (Decapoda: Astacidea: Nephropidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Structurally complex cobble seafloor protects against predators, and is generally assumed to be the only meaningful habitat for settlement and benthic recruitment of American lobsters (Homarus americanus H. Milne Edwards, 1837). Accordingly, historical surveys on featureless substrates such as mud have found few and only older juveniles. Mud, however, is far more common than cobble across the lobster’s range, and may be of increasing importance in regions where the lobster population has been growing over the past few decades. As a first step to determining whether mud seafloor serves as meaningful recruitment habitat for juvenile lobsters, we deployed artificial habitats (bio-collectors) at five locations varying from 100% mud to mostly cobble, in Maces Bay, Bay of Fundy, NB, Canada, to capture young lobsters. A broad size range of lobsters, from new settlers up to adolescents, colonized bio-collectors in all locations, suggesting that lobsters settle and spend at least some of their juvenile life on mud. Differences in body condition (length-standardized mass) of lobsters sampled from the different locations suggest that some individuals must reside on mud for at least months to years, long enough to show differential growth between habitats. The greater relative abundance of adolescents in bio-collectors on mud also suggests their net movement from densely populated cobble beds into mud habitat. We propose that mud seafloor may be a more important habitat for settlement and early survival of American lobsters than is currently appreciated, especially given the current potential saturation of scarce cobble nursery habitat by growing lobster populations and, in some regions, reduced predation on mud seafloor due to overfishing of groundfish.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".