Embryonic exposure to predation risk and hatch time variation in fathead minnows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organisms are exposed to a wealth of chemical information during their development. Some of these chemical cues indicate present or future dangers, such as the presence of predators that feed on either the developing embryos or their nearby parents. Organisms may use this information to modify their morphology or life-history, including hatching timing, or may retain information about risk until it gains relevance. Previous research has shown predation-induced alterations in hatching among embryonic minnows that were exposed to mechanical-injury-released alarm cues from conspecific embryos. Here, we test whether minnows likewise hatch early in response to alarm cues from injured adult conspecifics. We know that embryonic minnows can detect adult alarm cues and use them to facilitate learned recognition of predators; however, it is unknown whether these adult alarm cues will also induce a change in hatching time. Early hatching may allow animals to rapidly disperse away from potential predators, but late hatching may allow animals to grow and develop structures that allow them to effectively escape when they do hatch. Here, we found here that unlike embryonic fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) exposed to embryonic cues, embryonic minnows exposed to adult alarm cues do not exhibit early hatching. The ability of embryos to recognize adult alarm cues as a future threat, but not a current one, demonstrates sophisticated ontogenetic specificity in the hatching response of embryonic minnows.
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) | 0.001 | 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".