Effect of Animal Stocking Density and Habitat Enrichment on Survival and Vitality of Wild Green Shore Crabs, Carcinus maenas, Maintained in the Laboratory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The wide geographic distribution, large size and ease of capture has led to decapod crustaceans being used extensively in laboratory experiments. Recently in the United Kingdom decapod crustaceans were listed as sentient beings, resulting in their inclusion in animal care protocols. Ironically, little is known about how captive conditions affect the survival and general condition of wild decapod crustaceans. We used the green shore crab, Carcinus maenas, to investigate the effects of stocking density and shelter on survival and vitality indices during a 6 month period in the laboratory. Neither stocking density nor the presence of shelter affected survival. Stocking density also had no effect on the vitality indices (limb loss, claw strength, BRIX, righting time, leg flare and retraction). The presence of shelter did affect the number of limbs lost and the leg retraction response, but had no effect on the other vitality indices. All vitality indices changed, and mortality increased over time, independent of treatment: this became most apparent after 8 to 11 weeks storage in the laboratory. This decline in condition may have been due to repeated handling of the crabs, rather than the stocking conditions. In support of this, untracked, non-handled (control) individuals sustained a 4% mortality rate compared with 67% mortality in experimental crabs during the 6 month period. Although simple experimental monitoring of crabs with biweekly vitality tests only produced transient short-term stress events, the repeated handling over time apparently led to a cumulative stress and a deterioration in animal health. Bringing wild crustaceans into the laboratory and holding them, even with modest experimental manipulation, may result in high mortality rates. Researchers and animal care committees need to be aware that wild captive invertebrates will respond very differently to laboratory-bred vertebrates, and plan experiments accordingly.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".