Shoaling as an antiparasite defence in minnows (<i><scp>P</scp>imephales promelas</i>) exposed to trematode cercariae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Individuals that live in groups benefit from increased foraging success and decreased predation. Protection from some types of parasites may provide an additional benefit of group-living. For fish, the extent to which shoaling can reduce an individual's risk of exposure to the infective stages of parasites is unknown. 2. We tested for antiparasite benefits of shoaling in fathead minnows exposed to larvae (cercariae) of two of their most common species of trematode, Ornithodiplostomum ptychocheilus and Posthodiplostomum minimum. As developing stages (metacercariae) of these trematodes cause reductions in minnow activity, growth and survival, natural selection should favour the evolution of cercariae-avoidance behaviours. 3. We evaluated shoal dimensions in groups of minnows exposed to O. ptychocheilus and to other chemical/physical stimuli within aquaria. To compare risk of exposure in shoaling vs. non-shoaling fish, we confined groups of minnows into mesh cages in outdoor mesocosms, exposed them to cercariae, then compared mean worm numbers in grouped vs. solitary fish. Lastly, we tested whether fish located within the centre of an artificial shoal reduced their risk of cercariae exposure compared with those along peripheral edges. 4. Minnows distinguished infective cercariae from other potential aquatic threats and responded with activity that reduced the 2-dimensional area of their shoals 15-fold compared with water-only controls. Fish confined within artificial shoals had 3-fold fewer worms than single fish and minnows located within the centre of artificial shoals had significantly fewer worms than those without peripheral minnows. 5. These results show that shoaling reduces a minnows' risk of exposure to cercariae, either directly via detection of cercariae in the water column followed by behavioural avoidance or indirectly via behaviour-mediated differences in exposure between shoaling vs. non-shoaling fish.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; 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".