Visual cues eliciting the feeding reaction of a planktivorous fish swimming in a current
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The visual plankivorous feeding behaviour of the shiner perch (Cymatogaster aggregata) was investigated by means of a flow tank operated at various current speeds. Artemia salina was used as prey. In a second set of experiments, Artemia was darkened with black ink, to compare the visually mediated behaviour of C. aggregata while feeding on dark prey vs feeding on natural (i.e. semi-transparent) prey. The positions of the fish and its prey at the time of the feeding reaction of C. aggregata were measured in three dimensions. Prey were on average closer and more in line with the fish's axis when feeding reactions to darkened Artemia were considered, in comparison with natural Artemia. Three potential mechanisms triggering the feeding reaction of C. aggregata were explored: the prey may trigger a reaction in C. aggregata when it reaches a threshold (1) angular size, (2) angular velocity, or (3) rate of change of the angular size (i.e. loom) of the prey as it is carried passively by the current towards the fish. Our results show that angular velocity may trigger the fish's reaction when using semi-transparent prey, while loom may trigger the reaction to darkened prey. This suggests that feeding behaviour of planktivorous fish is flexible and can use different cues to trigger a motor reaction to prey with different visual characteristics. The feeding reaction appeared to occur at longer distances for semi-transparent rather than darkened Artemia. We suggest that semi-transparent Artemia were visible at greater distances because of their higher scattering (i.e. diffuse reflectance) that made them appear brighter when viewed against a dark background.
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".