Does donor group size matter? The response of guppies (<i>Poecilia reticulata</i>) and convict cichlids (<i>Amatitlania nigrofasciata</i>) to disturbance cues from conspecific and heterospecific donors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prey are under immense pressure to make context-specific, behavioural decisions. Prey use public information to reduce the costs associated with making inappropriate decisions. Chemical cues are commonly used by aquatic vertebrates to assess local threats and facilitate behavioural decision making. Previous studies on chemosensory assessment of risk have largely focused on damage-released alarm cues, with the cues released by disturbed or stressed prey (i.e., disturbance cues) receiving less attention. Disturbance cues are “early-warning signals” common among aquatic vertebrates that may warn conspecific and heterospecific prey guild members of potential risk. Initially, we conducted a series of laboratory studies to determine (i) if guppies (Poecilia reticulata Peters, 1859) produce and respond to disturbance cues and (ii) if relative concentration (donor group size) determines response intensity. Secondly, we examined if guppies and convict cichlids (Amatitlania nigrofasciata (Günther, 1867)) show similar response patterns to their own vs. heterospecific disturbance cues. Our results suggest that guppies exhibit increased predator avoidance behaviour to conspecific disturbance cues (relative to water from undisturbed conspecifics) and increased donor group size lead to stronger antipredator responses. However, although guppies and cichlids respond to each other’s disturbance cues, we found no effect of donor group size towards heterospecific disturbance cues. Our results suggest that disturbance cues are not generalized cues and present a degree of species-specificity.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".