Cross-population responses to conspecific chemical alarm cues in wild Trinidadian guppies, Poecilia reticulata: evidence for local conservation of cue production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within freshwater fishes, closely related species produce alarm cues that are chemically similar, leading to conserved antipredator responses. Similar conservation trends are predicted for species with geographically isolated populations. Here, we tested this hypothesis with the guppy ( Poecilia reticulata Peters, 1859) from two populations within the Aripo River, Trinidad. Free-ranging guppies in the Lower Aripo (high-predation population) exhibited more risk-aversive inspection behaviour towards a fish predator model paired with the alarm cues of guppies collected from the same population versus a river water control. In comparison, when paired with the alarm cues of guppies from the Upper Aripo (low-predation population), the response was intermediate. In the laboratory, we tested Upper and Lower Aripo guppies to the alarm cues of the same or different Aripo River donors, Quaré River guppies (a high-predation population from a different drainage), or a water control. Both Upper and Lower Aripo River guppies exhibited the highest intensity response to donors from the same population and the lowest intensity response to Quaré River donors, with the response to different Aripo donors being intermediate. Collectively, these results demonstrate a trend of intraspecific conservation of chemical alarm cue production, leading to population-specific responses to conspecific cues.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".