The effects of background risk on behavioural lateralization in a coral reef fish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Behavioural lateralization – the preferential use of one side of the body or either of the bilateral organs or limbs – has been well documented in many species, in a number of contexts. While the benefits reported are numerous, existing latent variability in the degree of lateralization within and across populations, species and taxa indicates that existing costs may modulate its expression. Few studies have reported changes in the degree of lateralization at the individual level, in response to long‐term changes in environmental conditions, but not in response to short‐term changes in environmental conditions. Predation is highly variable both temporally and spatially and hence is a good candidate for testing lateralization effects based on short‐term changes in environmental conditions. Here, we tested the hypothesis that the degree of behavioural lateralization changes following short‐term exposure to different levels of risk. We tested whether wild‐caught juvenile damselfish exposed to a high or low background level of risk for 4 days would subsequently differ in their turning bias, a trait that has been linked to predator escape behaviour in fishes. We found that 4 days is enough to induce a difference in the absolute lateralization scores of the fish, with high‐risk fish being more strongly lateralized than low‐risk fish. Practically, this difference stemmed from decreasing lateralization scores for newly recruiting coral reef fishes that were kept in low‐risk environments, with the concurrent maintenance of higher lateralization scores for fish maintained under high‐risk conditions. Fish from the high‐risk background had higher survival than those from the low‐risk background upon release into mesocosms containing reef predators. Our study highlights how early exposure to differential predation risk affects the degree of behavioural lateralization. Given the profound effects of lateralization on many aspects of an animal's life from its ability to discriminate conspecifics to how it forages and interacts during agonistic interactions, predation risk may be a key driver of animal development.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".