Modulation of environmental light alters reception and production of visual signals in Nile tilapia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Signal reception and production form the basis of animal visual communication, and are largely constrained by environmental light. However, the role of environmental light in producing variation in either signal reception or production has not been fully investigated. To chart the effect of environmental light on visual sensitivity and body colouration throughout ontogeny, we measured spectral sensitivity, lens transmission and body pattern reflectance from juvenile and adult Nile tilapia held under two environmental light treatments. Spectral sensitivity in juveniles reared under a broad-spectrum light treatment and a red-shifted light treatment differed mostly at short wavelengths, where the irradiance of the two light treatments differed the most. In contrast, adults held under the same two light treatments did not differ in spectral sensitivity. Lens transmission in both juveniles and adults did not differ significantly between environmental light treatments, indicating that differences in spectral sensitivity of juveniles originated in the retina. Juveniles and adults held under the two environmental light treatments differed in spectral reflectance, and adults transferred to a third, white light treatment differed in spectral reflectance from their counterparts held under the two original treatments. These results demonstrate that environmental light plays a crucial role in shaping signal reception in juveniles and signal production throughout ontogeny, reinforcing the notion that environmental light has the capacity to influence animal communication, and suggesting that the characteristics of environmental light should be considered in models of ecological speciation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".