Effects of ocean acidification on visual risk assessment in coral reef fishes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. With the global increase in CO2 emissions, there is a pressing need for studies aimed at understanding the effects of ocean acidification on marine ecosystems. Several studies have reported that exposure to CO2 impairs chemosensory responses of juvenile coral reef fishes to predators. Moreover, one recent study pointed to impaired responses of reef fish to auditory cues that indicate risky locations. These studies suggest that altered behaviour following exposure to elevated CO2 is caused by a systemic effect at the neural level. 2. The goal of our experiment was to test whether juvenile damselfish Pomacentrus amboinensis exposed to different levels of CO2 would respond differently to a potential threat, the sight of a large novel coral reef fish, a spiny chromis, Acanthochromis polyancanthus, placed in a watertight bag. 3. Juvenile damselfish exposed to 440 (current day control), 550 or 700 μatm CO2 did not differ in their response to the chromis. However, fish exposed to 850 μatm showed reduced antipredator responses; they failed to show the same reduction in foraging, activity and area use in response to the chromis. Moreover, they moved closer to the chromis and lacked any bobbing behaviour typically displayed by juvenile damselfishes in threatening situations. 4. Our results are the first to suggest that response to visual cues of risk may be impaired by CO2 and provide strong evidence that the multi-sensory effects of CO2 may stem from systematic effects at the neural level.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".