BEHAVIOURAL RESPONSES TO CONSPECIFIC DISTURBANCE CHEMICALS ENHANCE SURVIVAL OF JUVENILE BROOK CHARR, SALVELINUS FONTINALIS, DURING ENCOUNTERS WITH PREDATORS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Several species of aquatic organisms release chemical cues upon detecting predators. These chemicals may serve to 'warn' nearby conspecifics of the predator and hence have been termed disturbance cues. Disturbance cues are thought to be low-level indicators of risk to which prey animals respond with antipredator behaviour. However, little is known about the distribution of disturbance cues among different taxa or how prey animals use these cues to mediate their risk of predation. In this study we exposed brook charr (Salvelinus fontinalis) to water from a tank containing cues of disturbed or undisturbed conspecifics at the same time as we exposed them to cues of an unknown predator, northern pike (Esox lucius). In subsequent trials, we staged encounters between the charr and a pike and tested for differences in survival. We found that charr that were exposed to simultaneous cues from disturbed conspecifics and pike odour subsequently avoided the pike significantly more than charr that had been previously exposed to chemical stimuli from undisturbed charr plus pike odour. Moreover, pike took significantly longer to capture charr that had been previously exposed to disturbance cues from conspecifics plus pike stimuli compared to charr previously exposed to cues from undisturbed charr plus pike stimuli. Ours is the first study to demonstrate that detection of disturbance cues can provide a survival benefit during an encounter with a predator.
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".