The role of fanning behavior in water exchange by a nest‐guarding benthic fish before spawning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lay Abstract In some species of fish, males provide parental care and fan within nests before eggs are deposited. Courtship fanning behavior by the male may serve to advertise to females both his ability to disperse reproductive chemical signals and to ventilate eggs once deposited in the nest. We used a technique, called particle image velocimetry, to visualize and characterize flow both in and out of a nest generated by courting Round Goby males, a bottom‐dwelling fish. Once flow was characterized, we conducted a laboratory experiment to determine if caudal and pectoral fanning behavior was influenced by the presence of a female near the nest. The presence of a single female in the vicinity of the nest had no effect on fanning rates. However, there were significant differences between fanning behavior between types of fins. Fanning by caudal fins (with the tail at the nest entrance) resulted in water being pushed out of the nest. We estimated that caudal fanning currents propagated over a distance of at least 34 cm from the nest entrance (2–3 times the body length of an adult Round Goby). In contrast, fanning by pectoral fins (with the head at the nest entrance) resulted in flow entering the nest. Flow entering the nest was much lower than flow being pushed out of the nest. We speculate that by pumping water out of the nest with their tail, males disperse odors to guide reproductive females to the nest; whereas pectoral fanning serves mainly to ventilate the nest, denoting specialization of these locomotive structures as pumping and water stirring appendages.
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".