Influence of Body Size on the Responses of Fathead Minnows, <i>Pimephales promelas,</i> to Damselfly Alarm Cues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A wide diversity of aquatic organisms release chemical alarm cues upon encountering or being attacked by a predator. These alarm cues can be used by nearby individuals to assess local predation risk. Receivers warned by chemical alarm cues gain a survival benefit when encountering predators. Animals that are in the same prey guild (i.e. that co‐occur and share the same predators) may learn to recognize each others’ chemical alarm cues. This ability may confer an adaptive advantage if the prey animals are vulnerable to the same predators. However, if the prey grow to different sizes and as a consequence are no longer vulnerable to the same suite of predators, then there should no longer be an advantage for the prey to respond to each others’ alarm cues. In this study, we exposed small and large fathead minnows ( Pimephales promelas ) to cues from syntopic injured damselfly larvae ( Enallagma boreale ), cues from injured mealworm larvae ( Tenebrio molitor ) and to distilled water. Small minnows exhibited antipredatory behaviour and increased shelter use in response to injured damselfly cues but not to the controls of injured mealworm or distilled water. On the contrary, large minnows exhibited no significant change in shelter use in response to any of the injured cues. These data demonstrate that fathead minnows exhibit an antipredator response to damselfly alarm cues, but only when minnows are small and members of the same prey guild as damselfly larvae. These results demonstrate the considerable flexibility in the responses to heterospecific alarm cues.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".