Responses of wild fishes to alarm chemicals in pristine and metal-contaminated lakes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Responses of wild fish populations to alarm chemicals were examined in clean and metal-contaminated lakes in northern Ontario. Approximately 20 groups of three minnow traps were placed randomly in the littoral zone of each study lake. Within each minnow trap group, one trap was treated with a chemical alarm stimulus (Iowa darter (Etheostoma exile (Girard, 1859)) skin extract, prey-guild species, alarm cue present), one with swordtail (Xiphophorus helleri Heckel, 1848) skin extract (phylogenetically distant and allopatric from darters, alarm cue present but not recognized by darters), and one with distilled water (neutral control). Data included the identification and enumeration of fish captured in each trap after a 10-h set. Darters avoided areas labelled with the alarm stimulus relative to controls only in the clean lake; in contaminated lakes, darters did not avoid areas labelled with the alarm stimulus relative to controls. No effects of contamination on chemosensory function were observed for heterospecific non-darter prey-guild or predator-guild species. These findings suggest that chemical alarm systems do exist in nature, and that these systems appear to be affected by the presence of metals. Such pollution-related effects could lead to increased susceptibility of some fish species to predation and to population declines.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".