Predator‐induced selection on urchin activity level depends on urchin body size
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Temporally consistent individual differences in behavior impact many ecological processes. We simultaneously examined the effects of individual variation in prey activity level, covering behavior, and body size on prey survival with predators using an urchin–lobster system. Specifically, we tested the hypothesis that slow‐moving purple sea urchins ( Strongylocentrotus purpuratus ) and urchins who deploy extensive substrate (pebbles and stones) covering behavior will out‐survive active urchins that deploy little to no covering behavior when pitted against a predator, the California spiny lobster ( Panulirus interruptus ). We evaluated this hypothesis by first confirming whether individual urchins exhibit temporally consistent differences in activity level and covering behavior, which they did. Next, we placed groups of four urchins in mesocosms with single lobster and monitored urchin survival for 108 hr. High activity level was negatively associated with survival, whereas urchin size and covering behavior independently did not influence survival. The negative effect of urchin activity level on urchin survival was strong for smaller urchins and weaker for large urchins. Taken together, these results suggest that purple urchin activity level and size jointly determine their susceptibility to predation by lobsters. This is potentially of great interest, because predation by recovering lobster populations could alter the stability of kelp forests by culling specific phenotypes, like foraging phenotypes, from urchin populations.
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 | 0.000 | 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".