Brief review of fish pheromones and discussion of their possible uses in the control of non‐indigenous teleost fishes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Most species of fish rely on pheromones (chemical signals released by conspecifics) to mediate social behaviours. Three categories of pheromones can be discerned based on their function: anti‐predator cues, social cues, and reproductive cues. Each of these categories comprises pheromones that can induce “primer” effects (developmental and/or endocrinological changes) and/or “releaser” effects (strong behavioural changes). A handful of fish pheromones have been chemically identified and all are remarkably potent. Almost all are metabolic products whose production is seemingly unspecialised, insofar as they are not synthesised by specialised structures. Importantly, their potency and specificity makes them ideal candidates for use in control of both threatened (native) and unwanted (non‐indigenous) fish species. As has been so for insect control and now sea lamprey control in the North American Great Lakes, these cues could be used in many ways as part of integrated control programmes for invasive teleost fishes. Ideally, these programmes would be designed to simultaneously exploit multiple weaknesses in species’ life histories while being fully cognisant of stock‐recruitment relationships. Generally the approach would be to use a variety of pheromones to supplement and increase the efficiencies of other control strategies including the application of poisons or fish with genetic modification, trapping for removal or sterilisation, and barriers to prevent spread. Integrated pest control using pheromones appears especially practical for the common carp (Cyprinus carpio) which appears to use many of the same cues as the goldfish (Carassius auratus) and for which half a dozen pheromones have already been identified.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".