Predator detection in<i>Lymnaea stagnalis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laboratory-reared Lymnaea are capable of detecting and responding to the scent of a crayfish predator. The present investigation is a first attempt to characterize multiple stress-related behavioural responses resulting from predator detection and to depict the neurophysiological correlates of one of these illustrated behaviours. Snails respond to crayfish effluent (CE) by increasing the following behaviours: aerial respiration, exploratory/searching phase and sensitivity to the shadow-elicited full-body withdrawal response. In contrast, when snails detect CE they decrease both their righting response time when dislodged from the substratum and their basal cutaneous oxygen consumption. Interestingly, basal heart rate does not change in response to CE exposure. Finally, we directly measured the activity of the neuron that initiates aerial respiratory behaviour, RPeD1, in semi-intact preparations. Naïve snails exposed to CE prior to recording demonstrated both a significantly reduced spontaneous firing rate and fewer bouts of bursting activity compared with non-exposed snails. These data show that laboratory-reared Lymnaea that have never experienced a natural predator are still capable of detecting and responding to the presence of a historically sympatric predator. These data open a new avenue of research, which may allow a direct investigation from the behavioural to the neuronal level as to how an ecologically relevant stressful stimulus alters behaviour.
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".