Risk-sensitive foraging by juvenile signal crayfish (<i>Pacifastacus leniusculus</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feeding behavior of carnivorous and herbivorous organisms is commonly explained in terms of nutritional requirements. However, feeding behavior of omnivorous organisms is difficult to predict and may not be based on nutritional requirements alone. To assess the plasticity of feeding behaviors exhibited by an omnivore, we conducted a feeding experiment using juvenile signal crayfish ( Pacifastacus leniusculus (Dana, 1852)), both alone and in the presence of conspecifics and predators. Crayfish were presented with three types of food (chironomids, mayflies, and woody debris) in experimental enclosures, and the food type consumed and time to consumption were recorded. Although the same overall food choice (chironomid larvae) was made in all trials, the time it took for the juvenile crayfish to make a food selection was longer in the presence of adult conspecifics (both male and female) and adult cutthroat trout ( Oncorhynchus clarkii (Richardson, 1836)). Food selection also took longer, although not significantly, in the presence of conspecific juvenile crayfish, and no changes in behavior were noted in the presence of young-of-the-year (YOY) cutthroat trout. The altered behavior of the juvenile crayfish observed in the presence of adult fish and crayfish can lead to context-dependent effects of this omnivore on its community. Ecologists must be increasingly aware that the feeding of omnivores may not be solely based on nutritional criteria.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".