MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405398216 · doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2024.11.012

Exploring the potency and replenishment of woodfrog disturbance cues, a nonspecific communication system in aquatic species

2024· article· en· W4405398216 on OpenAlexafffund
Gabrielle H. Achtymichuk, Adam L. Crane, Theresa E. Wrynn, Maud C. O. Ferrari

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Behaviour · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaWestern College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Saskatchewan
KeywordsDisturbance (geology)Chemical communicationEcologyPotencyCommunicationPsychologyBiologyPheromone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Disturbance cues are chemicals released by disturbed but uninjured prey. These cues elicit increased vigilance when detected by conspecifics, similar to the better-known damaged-released alarm cues. Many studies on predation risk expose prey to cues from whole-body homogenates as an indicator of predation risk. Such homogenates are known to contain alarm cues but presumably also contain disturbance cues, although their contribution to responses elicited by homogenates is unstudied. Here, we first attempted to quantify the relative contribution of disturbance cues to the behavioural response to whole-body homogenates, by exposing larval woodfrogs, Lithobates sylvaticus , to homogenates from conspecifics that were either undisturbed (contained disturbance cues), or that just received a disturbance from a simulated predator chase (which presumably depleted disturbance cues). Both sets of homogenates elicited similar antipredator behaviour (reduced activity) in receivers, suggesting that disturbance cues either made little contribution to the responses or were not depleted by the chase. Responses to homogenates were also stronger than responses to disturbance cues alone, suggesting that tadpole alarm cues were the primary risk indicator in the homogenates, and that alarm cues are more potent than disturbance cues. Although the chemistry and release mechanisms of disturbance cues remain poorly understood, research suggests they are pulses of nitrogenous waste. Hence, in experiment 2, we investigated the physiological limitation of disturbance cue communication. Disturbance cues were collected after each of two chasing events, separated by either a short (5 min) or long (2 h) time delay, giving tadpoles either a short or long opportunity to replenish their disturbance cues. Unexpectedly, tadpoles maintained their response intensity to disturbance cues after the shorter replenishment period and showed a weakened response after the longer period. These findings indicate that disturbance cues in tadpoles are not immediately depleted by a chasing event and instead may be released slowly. • Disturbance cues are chemicals released from disturbed but uninjured prey. • These cues warn conspecifics of potential danger, triggering antipredator behaviour. • Woodfrogs' responses to disturbance cues were weaker than to whole-body alarm cues. • Disturbance cues were not depleted by a short, simulated predator chase. • Results indicate that woodfrog disturbance cues are released slowly over time.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.214

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal BehaviourSame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207