Response of juvenile male and female guppies to acute predation cues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Within aquatic ecosystems, chemosensory cues are widely used as publicly available risk assessment information, allowing prey to optimize behavioural decisions. In sexually dimorphic species, males and females often have different responses to local predation threats. According to the ‘distracted male’ hypothesis, reproductively active males should show a reduced response to risk cues compared to conspecific females due to the potentially high costs of lost courtship and mating opportunities among males. Recent evidence supports this hypothesis, showing that adult male guppies ( Poecilia reticulata ) show a reduced or absent response to chemosensory risk cues. Here, we further test the ‘distracted male’ hypothesis by testing non-reproductive male and female guppies, collected from the Lopinot River (high predation) or the Upper Aripo River (low predation). We found that juvenile male and female guppies exhibited similar response patterns. Consistent with our predictions, both juvenile male and female guppies collected from a high predation site exhibited a similar antipredator response (reduced number of lines crossed) when exposed to conspecific alarm cues or a novel odour (vs. water control). Those collected from a low predation site showed similar responses to conspecific alarm cues and no response to a novel odour or the water control. Combined, our results suggest that unlike adult guppies, non-reproductive male and female guppies make similar behavioural decisions in response to acute predation cues. As predicted by the ‘distracted male’ hypothesis, the previously reported absence of a response to chemosensory risk assessment cues among adult males may be due to a devaluation of risk assessment information in favour of continued mating.
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".