Predator chemical cues affect prey feeding activity differently in juveniles and adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nonconsumptive predator effects on prey behaviour are common in nature, but the possible influence of prey life-history stage on such responses is poorly known. We investigated whether prey life-history stage may be a factor affecting prey feeding activity responses to predator chemical cues, for which we used dogwhelks ( Nucella lapillus (L., 1758)) and their main prey, barnacles ( Semibalanus balanoides (L., 1758)), as a model system. Barnacles use their modified legs (cirri) to filter food from the water column. Through a manipulative laboratory experiment, we tested the hypothesis that the presence of dogwhelks affects the frequency of leg swipes differently in juvenile and adult barnacles. Juveniles showed a similar feeding activity with and without nearby dogwhelks, but adults exhibited a significantly lower frequency of leg swipes when dogwhelks were present. Such an ontogenetic change in the response of barnacles to predatory cues might have evolved as a result of dogwhelks preferring adult barnacles over juvenile barnacles, as found previously. Alternatively, barnacles could learn to recognize predator cues as they age, as shown for other prey species. Overall, our study indicates that the nonconsumptive effects of predators on prey need to be fully understood under consideration of the possible ontogenetic changes in prey responses to predator 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 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".