Effects of laboratory holding time and diet type on labile traits in the crab<i>Cancer irroratus</i>Say, 1817 (Decapoda: Brachyura: Cancridae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Collecting animals from the field and bringing them into the laboratory elicits acute and chronic stress responses that may affect the interpretation of experimental outcomes. The effects of prolonged laboratory holding (three months) on labile traits (metabolic rate and spontaneous activity) were quantified for the Atlantic rock crab Cancer irroratusSay, 1817. The effects of diet (heterogenous versus homogenous) on crab condition (hemolymph protein density, crab mass, and chelal compression strength) were also assessed. When offered a heterogeneous diet C. irroratus displayed a clear preference for mussels and an aversion to herring and algae. The amount crabs ate in the laboratory was negatively correlated to the density of hemolymph protein at the time of collection, which affirms the strong link between nutritional status and hemolymph protein in crustaceans. It also suggests that crabs in good nutritional condition may forgo eating even a high-quality meal if they are stressed. Overall, providing a heterogenous diet did not significantly improve survival rates or affect labile-trait responses in crabs. In contrast, prolonged holding in the laboratory had considerable effects on labile traits: resting metabolic rate (RMR) was highest after one week, but declined over the holding period. There was also a reduction in variation of locomotor activity for approximately 4 weeks. Acute stress responses (increased RMR and activity) also occurred after transfer from holding tanks to experimental chambers, likely due to animal handling. Given the increasing attention paid to animal sentience and welfare, especially for decapod crustaceans, the amount of time that wild crustaceans are held in the laboratory should be considered carefully.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".