Response of juvenile rainbow trout to varying concentrations of chemical alarm cue: response thresholds and survival during encounters with predators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prey animals may mediate the intensity of their behavioural responses to predators to reflect their risk of predation. However, in the absence of an overt (observable) behavioural response to a particular predation-risk cue, we need to ask whether or not prey animals are still using the cue to assess predation risk. Behavioural responses that are not readily observable within the time frame of the experiment are considered covert. In this study we exposed juvenile rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, to varying concentrations of conspecific chemical alarm cue to determine their observable response threshold. In a subsequent experiment we exposed the trout to alarm-cue concentrations above and below their behavioural-response threshold and allowed them to interact with an unknown predator (northern pike, Esox lucius). Trout exposed to concentrations below the observable response threshold were able to evade the predator equally as well as trout exposed to alarm-cue concentrations above the observable response threshold. This study illustrates the sophistication with which prey animals employ chemosensory risk assessment. We must use caution when relying on overt behavioural responses for assessing whether prey are utilizing specific cues to mediate their risk of predation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".