Speed kills? Migrating sea lamprey increase speed when exposed to an antipredator cue but make worse short-term decisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is growing evidence that a natural repellent, injury-released alarm cues, can be used to guide the movements of invasive fishes to achieve management goals. However, because this process involves perception, downstream cognitive processing of sensory information affects decisions regarding expression of antipredator behavior. Response habituation, wherein repeated or continuous exposure to a cue reduces behavioral response rates, is an oft-cited challenge for use of predation cues as conservation tools. Habituation may be delayed or prevented by altering the concentration and/or the temporal pattern of odor release (pulses of odor vs continuous application). We examined the effects of varying odor concentration and exposure regime (continuous vs pulsed) on behavioral response of adult sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) to conspecific alarm cue in a two-choice maze. We found that exposure to alarm cue induced more frequent and rapid upstream movement, regardless of exposure regime. There was also clear evidence of a speed-accuracy tradeoff, wherein sea lamprey that took longer to arrive at the bifurcation in the maze were more likely to avoid the arm activated with alarm cue. We could not ascertain the value of increasing concentration or pulsing the alarm cue on preventing habituation, as habituation did not occur. We hypothesize dishabituation to the alarm cue occurred immediately prior to testing due to handling that may have inadvertently simulated an unsuccessful predator attack. If true, incorporating dishabituating stimuli may prove a useful means to maintain the efficacy of alarm cue when applied as a repellent to manipulate the movements of sea lamprey.
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) | 0.002 | 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".