Picky predators and odd prey: colour and size matter in predator choice and zebrafish’s vulnerability – a refinement of the oddity effect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many fish species typically assort into homogeneous groups and thus reduce the risk of predators targeting individuals that are phenotypically odd compared to the majority of the group. The confusion and oddity effect hypotheses predict, that phenotypically odd individuals in a group are preferentially targeted by predators. Therefore, heterogeneous groups of prey should be more vulnerable to predator attention and attacks than homogeneous (all prey is the same colour, size, etc.) groups. Predators might use different cues to select a target, depending on their sensory abilities (sound, smell, vision, etc.). Visual-hunting predators that can see colour, for example, may be more likely to select prey based on colour than size oddity of prey. Previous studies on the oddity effect have found support for the colour-oddity and predator response, and to a lesser extent on size oddity. We thus predicted that, given a choice, a group with an odd-coloured individual would be targeted more often by a predator than a group with an odd-size fish but not odd in colour. Heterogeneous groups of six zebrafish (Danio rerio) containing either one odd-coloured (wildtype or red) or one odd-sized (large or small) individual were used as stimulus prey in dichotomous choice experiments examining prey preference in needlefish (Xenentodon cancila). Needlefish preferred heterogeneous groups regardless of the colour of the odd individual and when the odd individual was smaller than the other group members. However, when the odd individual was larger than the rest of the group, the predators preferred homogeneous groups of small fish. These new findings are inconsistent with the predictions of the oddity effect and warrant investigation of alternative hypotheses for size-assorted grouping in fish.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".