Is the perception of their own odour effective in orienting the exploratory activity of cave fishes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spatial knowledge of the surrounding environment is extremely important for animals to locate and efficiently exploit available resources (e.g., food, shelters, mates). Fishes usually acquire spatial information about their home range through vision, but vision fails in the dark and other sensory pathways have to be exploited. Fishes possess a remarkable olfactory system and have evolved a refined ability of chemical detection and recognition. Nevertheless, while the role of chemical cues in spatial orientation is well known in long-distance salmonid migrations, it has never been investigated in orientation within local, familiar areas. Here we report the first evidence that fish swimming can be topographically polarized by self-odour perception. When an unfamiliar area was experimentally scented with fish self-odour, the cave cyprinid Phreatichthys andruzzii Vinciguerra, 1924 behaved as if the area was previously explored. The fish preferred an odour-free area to a self-odour-scented one, and when offered the choice between a familiar and an unfamiliar area, they preferred the unexplored environment. Avoidance of self-odour-scented areas would allow effective exploration of the subterranean environment, minimizing the risks of repeatedly exploring the same water volumes. Our results are the first clear evidence that fish can use their own odour to orient their locomotor activity when visual cues are not available. This highlights the possible role of chemical information in fish orientation.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".