Responses to Predation Cues and Food in Two Species of Sympatric, Tropical Sea Urchins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. We examined the responses of two tropical sea urchins, Lytechinus variegatus and Tripneustes ventricosus , to cues from predators, simulated predation events and food. Cues released from damaged conspecifics, heterospecifics and heteroclassics (holothurian) were used to simulate predation events in field experiments. Responses to the presence of seagrass, spiny lobster or both were tested in tanks. Findings were supplemented by natural history observations of dispersion patterns off Bermuda. In field experiments, neither species formed groupings in the presence of conspecific, heterospecific or heteroclassic cues. Flight responses were greatest in conspecific treatments; responses to heterospecific cues were intermediate to control and conspecific cues. Urchins in pre‐assembled associations remained in groups in control trials but dispersed when exposed to predation cues. Lytechinus exhibited greater sensitivity to predation cues than Tripneustes . Cues from a damaged sea cucumber invoked a response from Lytechinus but not Tripneustes . Both species employed a two phased response to cues from damaged conspecifics: initially a rapid, but ephemeral (2 min), alarm response followed by a slower (≈ 35 % lower) sustained flight phase for 6+ min, which in nature would disperse urchins downstream and away from a predator. In tank experiments, Lytechinus formed groupings only around food or food + predators. The presence of a predator reduced the aggregation response to food, suggesting that Lytechinus employed a risk aversion strategy. Tripneustes exhibited escape or refractory behavior in both control and experimental treatments in laboratory tanks.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".