Disturbance cues as a source of risk assessment information: Effects of sender identity and experience with risk on the response of Trinidadian guppies (Poecilia reticulata)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chemical cues are commonly used by aquatic vertebrates to assess local threats and facilitate behavioural decision-making. Disturbance cues are ‘early warning signals’ common among aquatic vertebrates, that warn conspecific and heterospecific prey guild members of potential risks. Recent studies suggest that disturbance cues may play an important role in the predation sequence, providing prey with valuable information that affords the opportunity to interrupt the predation sequence and successfully avoid predator encounters. However, little is known about the informational content of disturbance cues and what factors influence the response patterns to these cues. Therefore, we assessed the role of species-specificity and prior experience with predation risk on the information content conveyed by disturbance cues. First, we tested whether receivers exhibit graded antipredator responses to cues from either 10 or 20 conspecific and heterospecific senders. Receivers increased the intensity of their antipredator response to cues from 20 compared to 10 conspecific donors. However, we found that while receivers respond to heterospecific disturbance cues, there was no effect of donor group size, suggesting that there may be a degree of species-specificity of disturbance cues. Second, using wild-caught and laboratory-reared fish, we tested whether senders and receiver responded differentially to disturbance cues if they had prior experience with predation risk. The response of high-risk fish was dependent upon the source of disturbance cue senders (high vs. low risk). However, guppies collected from a low-risk site exhibited similar responses to disturbance cues, regardless of the sender population. Combined, our results demonstrate that disturbance cues may serve as a more elaborate form of risk assessment information than previously thought, and that the response to these cues is, at least in part, dependent upon both the sender’s and receiver’s recent experience with predation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".