Interspecific variation in the response of fish to anthropogenic noise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Elevated levels of anthropogenic noise, especially those observed through boating activity, can negatively impact fish species, but it remains unclear which species are most affected and which behavioural metrics are best used in assessing fish responses to underwater noise. The effects of boat sounds on freshwater species are of particular interest because freshwater environments are less studied than the marine realm despite comparably high levels of biodiversity. In the current study, we examine the behavioural responses to boat noise in two freshwater species that differ in their hypothesised response to sound inputs: the spottail shiner ( Notropis hudsonius ), a species with known hearing specialisations, and the bluegill sunfish ( Lepomis macrochirus ), a species with more generalised hearing capabilities. Fish were presented with boat noise in a laboratory setting, and their swimming, escape and foraging behaviours were assessed to examine differential responses in relation to hypothesised hearing abilities. Both species showed a decrease in general swimming behaviours but an increase in erratic movements in response to boat noise, indicative of stress responses for both species. Despite the similarities in response based on swimming behaviours however, only spottail shiners exhibited true escape responses to the onset of the noise stimulus, suggesting a more extreme reaction in the species with a more refined hearing ability. Taken together, these results show that freshwater fish can respond to increased levels of anthropogenic noise, but that the severity of the response may differ based on auditory structures and therefore presumed hearing ability. The differences seen between behavioural metrics used (swimming vs. escape responses) also demonstrate how care must be taken in choosing a metric when developing exposure guidelines for underwater sound exposures, as different metrics could lead to differential impact assessments.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 teacher head, 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".