BEHAVIOURAL RESPONSES TO CONSPECIFIC DISTURBANCE CHEMICALS ENHANCE SURVIVAL OF JUVENILE BROOK CHARR, SALVELINUS FONTINALIS, DURING ENCOUNTERS WITH PREDATORS
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it