Putative chemical cue from<i>Gyrodactylus-</i>infected guppies subtly alters behaviour but prior exposure decreases parasite intensity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The reliance on chemical communication is well established for evading predation in aquatic systems. Only a few studies have found evidence that chemical cues released from aquatic animals infected with parasites alter behaviour. Furthermore, the link between putative chemical cues and susceptibility to infection has not been studied. The objectives of this study were to determine if exposure to chemical cues fromGyrodactylus turnbulli-infected guppies (Poecilia reticulata) at various times post-infection resulted in altered behaviour of uninfected conspecifics, and if prior exposure to this putative infection cue reduced transmission. Guppies responded to this chemical cue. Those exposed for 10 min to cues released from fish that had been infected for 8 or 16 days spent less time in the centre half of the tank. Continuous exposure to infection cues for 16 days did not alter guppy shoal behaviour but provided partial protection against infection when the parasite was introduced. Shoals exposed to these putative infection cues became infected, but infection intensity increased more slowly and to a lower peak compared with shoals exposed to the control cue. These results indicate that guppies show subtle behavioural responses to infection cues, and that exposure to infection cues reduces the intensity of outbreaks.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".