Sex- and state-dependent attraction of round gobies, Neogobius melanostomus, to conspecific calls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acoustic communication is of fundamental importance in many fish species but it is often unclear what information is present in different calls and how responsiveness varies with reproductive state and the sex of the receiver. The current study investigates reproductive flexibility in acoustic responsiveness through differential attraction between reproductive morphs of the round goby (Neogobius melanostomus) to conspecific calls. Parental male (PM) round gobies emit calls and females respond to these calls with high specificity. We used playback experiments to determine the response of gobies to recordings of two conspecific calls, a grunt and a drum. For the grunt, reproductive females (RF) displayed a significantly higher response for first approach than non-reproductive males (NRM), but RFs never responded to the drum call. Upon examining within-morph responses for time spent at a playing speaker, RFs were found to spend the longest time at the grunt call compared to other sound types. In contrast to the female responses, NRMs and sneaker males (SM) displayed a strong preference to the drum call. Overall these results support that the grunt could be for mate attraction while NRMs and SMs may be eavesdropping on the drum call. By determining the relationship between reproductive state and responses to conspecific calls, we show that reproductive state is a critical factor in understanding behavioural responses in 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 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) | 0.001 | 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".