Linking Morphological and Behavioural Defences: Prey Fish Detect the Morphology of Conspecifics in the Odour Signature of their Predators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Predation is a strong selective force acting on both morphology and behaviour of prey animals. While morphological defences (e.g. crypsis, presence of armours or spines or specific body morphologies) and antipredator behaviours (e.g. change in foraging or reproductive effort, or hiding and fleeing behaviours) have been widely studied separately, few studies have considered the interplay between the two. The question raised in our study is whether antipredator behaviours of a prey fish to predator odours could be influenced by the morphology of prey conspecifics in the diet of the predator. We used goldfish ( Carassius auratus ) as our test species; goldfish exposed to predation risk significantly increase their body depth to length ratio, which gives them a survival advantage against gape‐limited predators. We exposed shallow‐bodied and deep‐bodied goldfish to the odour of pike ( Esox lucius ) fed either form of goldfish. Deep‐bodied goldfish displayed lower intensity antipredator responses than shallow‐bodied ones, consistent with the hypothesis that individuals with morphological defences should exhibit less behavioural modification than those lacking such defences. Moreover, both shallow‐ and deep‐bodied goldfish displayed their strongest antipredator responses when exposed to the odour of pike fed conspecifics of their own morphology, indicating that goldfish are able to differentiate the morphology of conspecifics through predator diet cues. For a given individual, predator threat increases as the prey become more like the individual eaten, revealing a surprising level of sophistication of chemosensory assessment by prey fish.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".