MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2555407752 · doi:10.1242/jeb.112490

Dusky dottyback actors avoid typecasting

2015· article· en· W2555407752 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Constance M. O’Connor

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueIchthyology and Marine Biology
Établissements canadiensMcMaster University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPredationCamouflageBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>EcologyFishery

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Many animals make a living as actors. Some harmless animals will mimic toxic animals, in order to make potential predators think twice before attacking. On the other end of the spectrum, some predators will mimic harmless animals or objects, and use this ruse to sneak up on their prey. However, there are costs to acting if animals become typecast in a role. If predators discover that a delicious prey animal is merely pretending to be dangerous, they will learn to differentiate the truly noxious from the imitators. Similarly, if the predators always take on a single disguise, then prey animals will learn to associate the costume with danger.Fabio Cortesi, from the University of Basel, Switzerland, and the University of Queensland, Australia, and an international group of collaborators from Australia, Canada, UK and Sweden, decided to investigate how a coral reef fish, the dusky dottyback (Pseudochromis fuscus), maximizes the benefits of being a mimic, while avoiding some of the pitfalls. Cortesi and his colleagues conducted their experiments at Lizard Island, in Australia's Great Barrier Reef, where the dusky dottyback comes in two colours: bright yellow and brown. First, the researchers confirmed that there are no genetic differences underlying the colour variation in dottybacks. When the team examined the histology of dottyback skin, they also learned that the dottybacks were able to change colour by changing the ratios of yellow to black pigment cells within the skin. Thus, the researchers had good evidence that the dottybacks change colour to imitate something in their environment. But what are dottybacks imitating, and why?The yellow dottybacks at Lizard Island are usually found on live yellow coral with yellow damselfish (Pomacentrus spp.), while the brown dottybacks are usually found on brown coral rubble, with brown damselfish. To investigate whether the dottybacks match their colour to the background coral or to their damselfish neighbours, Cortesi and his colleagues set up artificial coral patches around Lizard Island, composed of either yellow coral or brown coral rubble, and stocked these patches with either yellow or brown damselfish. The researchers then added either yellow or brown dottybacks to the patches, creating all potential coral, damselfish and dottyback colour combinations. When the scientists returned to the patches 2 weeks later, they found that the dottybacks always matched their local damselfish neighbours and not the background coral colour.Cortesi and his colleagues hypothesized that the dottybacks might be imitating the adult damselfish in order to prey upon the juvenile damselfish. To test this theory, the researchers brought dottybacks and damselfish into the laboratory where they could conduct more detailed behavioural observations. They found that when the dottybacks matched the colour of the local adult damselfish, the juvenile damselfish were much less wary of them and the dottybacks were able to prey easily on the unsuspecting fish. The authors noted that the juveniles should eventually figure out this disguise in the wild. However, the dottybacks are able to outsmart their prey by not being typecast in either a consistently brown or yellow role.Although the dottybacks match their prey rather than their habitat, there is another benefit of being adaptable actors. In a final experiment, the researchers showed that the predatory coral trout (Plectropomus leopardus) strike less often at dottybacks that are matched to the coral. Thus, these little animal actors make the most of their disguise by flexibly imitating their prey and benefit from some anti-predator camouflage themselves.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,007
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,024

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0070,002

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,032
Tête enseignante GPT0,293
Écart entre enseignants0,262 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2015
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Experimental Biology→Même sujetIchthyology and Marine Biology→Travaux en français237 207→