Size‐Assortative Shoaling in the Guppy (<i>Poecilia reticulata</i>): The Role of Active Choice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Many fish species exhibit size‐assortative shoaling, which is often thought to be driven by predation risk. Recent fieldwork has revealed that guppies ( Poecilia reticulata ) are more size assorted in high‐predation populations than in low‐predation ones. However, size assortment does nonetheless occur in some low‐predation populations, suggesting that predation is unlikely the sole driving force behind size‐assortment. Here, we investigated in the laboratory the potential role of active choice in size‐assortative shoaling in wild‐caught female guppies originating from two populations of the same river system in Trinidad. Small or large focal females from each population were offered a binary choice of shoaling with either four small female conspecifics or four large ones. Observed shoaling preferences depended on the body size of the focal fish, suggesting phenotype‐mediated conflict over group composition. Large focal fish preferred to shoal with the size‐matched stimulus shoal of large fish. In contrast, small focal fish did not shoal assortatively but also preferred to shoal with larger females. Our results suggest that size‐assortative shoaling in female guppies is likely to be due to factors other than active choice, such as habitat segregation and sexual harassment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".