DO JUVENILE YELLOW PERCH USE DIET CUES TO ASSESS THE LEVEL OF THREAT POSED BY INTRASPECIFIC PREDATORS?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The mechanisms that drive the evolution of intraspecifc predation (cannibalism) are unclear. Many authors speculate that predators can make substantial gains in nutrition and reproductive output by consuming conspecifics. However, by consuming conspecifics, predators may risk decreasing their inclusive fitness by consuming kin or increasing the chances of pathogen transmission. In fishes intraspecific predation is typically observed when resource levels are low. During these periods it is important for prey fishes to be able to accurately assess their level of predation risk from cannibalistic conspecifics. Prey animals may be able to do this by using chemical cues available in the predator's diet. The last meal consumed by the predator may give important information for prey animals to assess predation risk. We exposed juvenile yellow perch, Perca flavescens, to chemical cues of adult perch fed a diet of either juvenile perch, spot tail shiners, Notropis hudsonius, swordtails, Xiphophorus helleri, or a control of distilled water. Spot tail shiners and juvenile perch commonly form mixed species shoals and are vulnerable to the same suite of predators. Swordtails do not co-occur with yellow perch or spot tail shiners. We found that juvenile perch increased shelter use significantly more when exposed to chemical cues of adult perch fed juvenile perch or spot tails, compared to adult perch fed swordtails or those exposed to distilled water. This suggests that the level of chemosensory assessment used by juvenile perch is quite sophisticated and that the antipredator response can be mediated by specific cues in the predator's diet. This study is the first to demonstrate a response of a fish to chemical cues from intraspecific predators. Future studies should examine the importance of predator diet cues in responses to chemical cues from intraspecific predators.
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) | 0.002 | 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".