`Different strokes for different folks': geographically isolated strains of<i>Lymnaea stagnalis</i>only respond to sympatric predators and have different memory forming capabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gaining insight into how natural trait variation is manifest in populations shaped by differential environmental factors is crucial to understanding the evolution, ecology and sensory biology of natural populations. We have demonstrated that lab-reared Lymnaea detect and respond to the scent of a crayfish predator with specific, appropriate anti-predator behavioral responses, including enhanced long-term memory (LTM) formation, and that such predator detection significantly alters the electrophysiological activity of RPeD1, a neuron that is a necessary site for LTM formation. Here we ask: (1) do distinct populations of wild Lymnaea stagnalis respond only to sympatric predators and if so, can these traits be quantified at both the behavioral and neurophysiological levels, and (2) does the presence of a non-sympatric predator elicit anti-predator behaviors including augmentation of LTM? We tested three different populations of wild (i.e. not lab-reared) snails freshly collected from their natural habitat: (1) polders near Utrecht in The Netherlands, (2) six seasonally isolated ponds in the Belly River drainage in southern Alberta, Canada and (3) a 20-year-old human-made dugout pond in southern Alberta. We found strain-specific variations in the ability to form LTM and that only a sympatric predator evoked anti-predatory behaviors, including enhanced LTM formation and changes in RPeD1 activity.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".