Behavioural variation between piscivore and insectivore rainbow trout <scp><i>Oncorhynchus mykiss</i></scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A proactive-reactive continuum integrating multiple (i.e., 3+) dimensions of animal behaviour has been reported as a major axis of behavioural differentiation, but its stability along a biological hierarchy from individuals to populations remains speculative. Piscivore and insectivore rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) represent closely related ecotypes with strong ecological divergence driven by selection for a large-bodied piscivorous lifestyle with fast juvenile growth vs. selection for smaller adult body size and lower growth associated with an insectivorous diet. To evaluate whether differences in behaviour between ecotypes are consistent with a proactive-reactive axis and consistent along a biological hierarchy, the authors examined variation in emergence time from a shelter, exploration, activity and predator inspection among individuals, populations and ecotypes of juvenile piscivore and insectivore rainbow trout O. mykiss. As expected, the faster-growing piscivore ecotype was more proactive (i.e., shorter emergence time, exploration and predator inspection) than the more reactive insectivore ecotype. This behavioural contrast was partly maintained across populations, although activity differences were most pronounced among populations, rather than emergence time. Insectivore fry showed substantial variation in behavioural expression among individuals within populations; by contrast, piscivores showed highly similar proactive behaviours with significantly lower inter-individual variation in behavioural expression, suggesting intense selection on behaviour supporting their faster growth. This work suggests that piscivore and insectivore O. mykiss broadly differ in behaviour along a proactive vs. reactive continuum, and highlights the greater multidimensionality of behavioural expression within the insectivore ecotype. Contrasting behaviours between ecotypes may result from differential selection for slow vs. fast juvenile growth and associated metabolism, and may contribute to adult trophic specialization.
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".