Behavioral evidence for a role of chemoreception during reproduction in lake trout
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chemoreception is hypothesized to influence spawning site selection, mate search, and synchronization of gamete release in chars (Salvelinus spp.), but behavioral evidence is generally lacking. Here, we provide a survey of the behavioral responses of reproductive male and female lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush) to natural conspecific chemosensory stimuli. A flow-through laboratory assay with side-by-side artificial spawning reefs was used to evaluate behavioral preferences of spawning-phase males and females for chemosensory stimuli from juveniles and from spawning-phase males and females. Males and females preferred male and juvenile stimuli over no stimuli, but only had weak preferences for female stimuli. Only females had a preference for male over juvenile stimuli when given a direct choice between the two. The unexpected observation of male attraction to male stimuli, even when offered female stimuli, indicates a fundamental difference from the existing models of chemical communication in fishes. We discuss our results from the perspectives of prespawning aggregation, mate evaluation, and spawning synchronization. Identification of specific components of the stimuli will allow confirmation of the function and may have management implications for native and invasive populations of lake trout that are ecologically and economically important.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".