Risk taking not foraging behavior predicts dispersal of recently emerged stream brook charr (<i>Salvelinus fontinalis</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several hypotheses predict that individual differences in migration and dispersal are related to individual differences in routine behavior associated with foraging and risk taking. We tested whether short‐term dispersal of recently emerged brook charr Salvelinus fontinalis was correlated with differences in activity during prey search in the field (a measure of foraging tactic) or in the time taken to exit a dark tube into an unfamiliar field environment (a measure of risk taking). For one sample of fish, we tested whether an individual's propensity to disperse in a standardized dispersal test in the lab was correlated with its activity during prey search and its exit times in the field. For another sample of marked, released and recaptured fish, we tested whether an individual's minimum displacement distance over 6 days in the field (a measure of dispersal in the field) was related to its propensity to disperse in the lab. For the first sample, an individual's propensity to disperse in the lab was correlated with risk taking only, but, contrary to expectation, individuals with long exit times (risk‐avoiders) dispersed farther than those with short exit times (risk‐takers). For the second sample, dispersal in the field was also correlated with propensity to disperse in the lab, but, contrary to expectation, individuals with greater displacements in the field displayed lower propensities to disperse in the lab. Our findings demonstrate that individual differences in juvenile dispersal are related to differences in risk taking behavior, but not in foraging tactic, and that the nature of this relationship can depend on environmental context. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that individuals differing in risk taking behavior can contribute disproportionately to ecological processes involving long‐distance movement.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.022 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".