Predation costs of impaired chemosensory risk assessment on acid-impacted juvenile Atlantic salmon (<i>Salmo salar</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Weak levels of acidification (pH < 6.6) inhibit the ability of fishes to assess predation risk via interference with damage-released chemical alarm cues. While survival benefits associated with behavioural responses to alarm cues have been demonstrated under laboratory conditions, it remains largely unknown whether fishes under natural conditions experience similar benefits. Using hatchery-reared juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) as a model organism, we conducted a tethering experiment in reaches of neutral (pH ≥ 6.6) and acidic (pH < 6.6) salmon nursery streams, plus one additional stream that varied between pH classes. Despite exposure to fewer predatory fish species, similar availability of physical refugia, and similar threat from terrestrial predators, tethered fish in acidic streams were significantly more likely to be predated over the course of a trial than their counterparts in neutral streams. These results suggest that (i) in the absence of compensatory mechanisms, juvenile Atlantic salmon under acidic conditions may experience greater rates of predation as a result of impaired chemosensory risk assessment, and (ii) brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) appear to play the greatest role in limiting the survival of young-of-the-year (0+) salmon.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".