Sex and background risk influence responses to acute predation risk in Trinidadian guppies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Intraspecific sex differences in morphology, physiology, and behavior are widespread among taxa. However, despite their fundamental importance, they have been relatively understudied in the context of risk assessment. For instance, with Trinidadian guppies (Poecilia reticulata), there has been a bias toward the exclusive use of females, as males are thought to be less responsive to acute predation threats. However, there is little empirical evidence supporting this assumption. Moreover, the antipredator behavior of male guppies has been unexplored, perhaps resulting in the over-generalization of female behavior to both sexes in previous studies. Here, we conducted laboratory experiments involving wild-caught and laboratory-reared guppies. In Experiment 1, shoals of either male or female guppies from a high-predation population were tested for their response to alarm cues, novel odor, or a water control. We found that while female shoals exhibited strong antipredator responses to alarm cues and neophobic responses to novel odor, male shoals exhibited only a weak response to alarm cues and no evidence of neophobia. In Experiment 2, we exposed male and female guppies to high- or low-predation risk and then tested individuals for their responses to alarm cues, novel odor, or water control. Regardless of background risk, males did not respond to any stimulus. In contrast, low-risk females exhibited antipredator responses toward alarm cues and those from high background risk displayed neophobia. Our results suggest that females are more cautious when encountering an acute predation risk, highlighting the importance of accounting for both sexes in studies on 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".