Can The Timing And Duration of Planktonic Larval Development Determine Invasion Success? A Case Study Comparing Range Expansion In The European Green Crab, Carcinus Maenas, And The Native Lined Shore Crab, Pachygrapsus Crassipes, In The North-Eastern Pacific.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Major El Niño events and oceanic heat waves are linked to the range expansion of many marine species. For the shores of the northeast Pacific, we compared range expansion in the European green crab, Carcinus maenas, which was introduced to San Francisco Bay prior to 1990, to that of the native lined-shore crab, Pachygrapsus crassipes, which has existed on the coast since at least the end of the last Ice Age (>10,000 years ago). The initial northern range limit of these species was central California and central Oregon, respectively. Both species increased their northern range along the open coast to northern Oregon, Washington and Vancouver Island after strong El Niño events. C. maenas, however, in just a matter of decades, successfully established populations in inlets on the west coast of Vancouver Island, and possibly also in the Salish Sea, while P. crassipes, in thousands of years, never has. We hypothesize that this difference in invasion success is due to the shorter larval duration of C. maenas, < 2 months, compared to that of P. crassipes, 3-4 months and timing of larval release, winter for both species. Because the residency times of water in the inlets of the west coast of Vancouver Island are ~1-2 months, they can act as an incubator for the larvae of C. maenas, while those of P. crassipes are likely flushed out to the open sea before they can complete their development.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".