Behavioural and electrophysiological responses by reproductive female<i>Neogobius melanostomus</i>to odours released by conspecific males
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Behavioural and electrophysiological responses of reproductive and non‐reproductive female round gobiesNeogobius melanostomusto water previously occupied by male round gobies (reproductive male water) were compared. Reproductive females spent more time than non‐reproductive females in a tank near the input of water conditioned from reproductive males. Also, reproductive females swam significantly faster than non‐reproductive females, suggesting that reproductive male odour may have activated spawning behaviour. Olfactory epithelial field potential measurement (electro‐olfactogram, EOG) showed that reproductive male water was a potent olfactory stimulus to reproductive females, but not to non‐reproductive females. Reproductive females responded significantly more than non‐reproductive females to solid‐phase (octadecylsilane) extracts of reproductive male water. Also, when these extracts were separated on reverse phase high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), reproductive females showed noticeably greater responses than non‐reproductive females to the fractions that eluted between 30 and 40 min. The behavioural data support the hypothesis that reproductive male round gobies release compounds into the water that attract potential mates. The EOG data indicate that these compounds can be quantitatively extracted from the water and be partially purified by HPLC. The evidence is not sufficient to indicate whether or not the compounds are steroids. The relatively early elution time on HPLC, however, suggests that if these compounds are steroids, then it is more likely that they will be conjugated rather than free steroids.
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".