Return Of The Native: Historical Comparison Of Invasive And Indigenous Crab Populations Near The Mouth Of Delaware Bay

An invasive population of the Asian shore crab Hemigrapsus sanguineus was discovered in 1988 near the mouth of Delaware Bay, and populations now occur from North Carolina to Maine. The shore crab H. sanguineus competes with indigenous species and has displaced resident crabs throughout its invasive range. However, there have been few studies that document changes in populations of H. sanguineus after the species has become established. We compare sympatric populations of the Asian shore crab and a native mud crab (Panopeus herbstii) that were monitored initially in 2001 and again in 2011 and 2012. The historical study was conducted in a rocky habitat near Cape Henlopen at the southern terminus of Delaware Bay (38.793 degrees N, 75.158 degrees W). Results showed large differences in the relative abundance of the two species throughout the duration of the study. The Asian shore crab H. sanguineus accounted for 75% of total crab abundance in 2001, but abundance had decreased to less than 25% in both 2011 and 2012. Similar results were obtained when we compared the two species in terms of biomass. Additional sampling in 2012 showed comparable low values for H. sanguineus when compared with P. herbstii at two stations about 25 km and 50 km farther south along the coast. In contrast, H. sanguineus was strongly dominant at a station 50 km north of the historical sampling site. Percentage rock cover and size of rocks varied little among sampling locations, and all sites were proximal to the coastal ocean. However, basal sediment at the northern station was coarser than sediments at the other sites, which may have restricted the occurrence of mud crabs. Overall results of the study indicate a resurgence of native mud crabs at sites where sedimentary characteristics provide adequate habitat

Psycholinguistic variables matter in odor naming

People from Western societies generally find it difficult to name odors. In trying to explain this, the olfactory literature has proposed several theories that focus heavily on properties of the odor itself but rarely discuss properties of the label used to describe it. However, recent studies show speakers of languages with dedicated smell lexicons can name odors with relative ease. Has the role of the lexicon been overlooked in the olfactory literature? Word production studies show properties of the label, such as word frequency and semantic context, influence naming; but this field of research focuses heavily on the visual domain. The current study combines methods from both fields to investigate word production for olfaction in two experiments. In the first experiment, participants named odors whose veridical labels were either high-frequency or low-frequency words in Dutch, and we found that odors with high-frequency labels were named correctly more often. In the second experiment, edibility was used for manipulating semantic context in search of a semantic interference effect, presenting the odors in blocks of edible and inedible odor source objects to half of the participants. While no evidence was found for a semantic interference effect, an effect of word frequency was again present. Our results demonstrate psycholinguistic variables-such as word frequency-are relevant for olfactory naming, and may, in part, explain why it is difficult to name odors in certain languages. Olfactory researchers cannot afford to ignore properties of an odor's label