Ontogenetic changes in the association between antipredator responses and growth variables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract 1. An organism’s growth parameters are expected to depend on environmental constraints, such as predation risk and food supply. However, antipredator responses, food intake, and thus growth of an animal may be mediated by behavioural traits, which are likely to differ among developmental stages. In this study, it was investigated how the relationship between growth and behavioural antipredator responses changes during ontogeny in the time‐constrained dragonfly species Libellula depressa , and which factors influenced specific behavioural decisions at different points in ontogeny. 2. The results revealed that behavioural strategies differed between larval developmental sages, depending on associations between larval growth, food supply, and predation risk. Early in ontogeny, faster development was correlated with high larval activity and high food supply. This resulted in high activity levels under high food conditions irrespectively of predator presence, and under low food supply in predator absence only. In the intermediate stage of development, all larvae displayed a high activity level, which was correlated in general with fast development. However, growth later in ontogeny was not only influenced by the activity level, but also by predator presence and food supply, with larvae reared under high food supply and/or in presence of predators attaining a higher final mass. Thus, not only the way in which larval growth parameters and behaviour are related changed during development, but also whether the factors influenced larval growth and behaviour. Once the larvae reached the ultimate stage of development, in which they overwinter, behavioural patterns observed were consistent with model predictions. 3. It is advocated that behavioural plasticity of prey organisms in different developmental stages should be analysed in the context of associated growth variables.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".