MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406929165 · doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2024.123060

Importance of visual and chemical cues in infection detection and avoidance in freshwater fish

2025· article· en· W4406929165 on OpenAlexafffund
Ariane Côté, Sandra A. Binning

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Behaviour · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicParasite Biology and Host Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsFish <Actinopterygii>Freshwater fishSensory cueBiologyCommunicationPsychologyZoologyEcologyAvoidance learningCognitive psychologyFisheryNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The characteristics of infected animals, including their odour, appearance, behaviour and sound, greatly differ from those of uninfected conspecifics. These differences can serve as cues to recognize and avoid infected individuals and minimize the risk of infection. Avoidance of infected conspecifics is a risk-sensitive behaviour that can be influenced by various factors, including sensory cues, which are poorly understood in fish. We investigated the ability of two populations of wild-caught pumpkinseed sunfish, Lepomis gibbosus , to distinguish between conspecifics infected with parasitic worms and uninfected individuals in two-choice experiments using visual and chemical cues separately. One population was from a lake without parasites (parasite-naïve), whereas the second population originated from a lake with a high prevalence of trematode and cestode worms (parasite-experienced). Both populations preferred to be with conspecifics, regardless of their infection level, over being alone when given visual cues but avoided conspecifics and preferred to be alone when given chemical cues, suggesting that visual and chemical cues are not redundant. Fish from neither population showed a preference between infected and uninfected conspecifics when given visual cues. However, there was a large interindividual variation in preference for chemical cues: some fish preferred uninfected conspecifics, whereas others preferred infected fish. On average, naïve fish avoided infected conspecifics, whereas experienced fish did not show any preferences, suggesting that fish from lakes with high prevalence of infection are habituated to infection cues. We suggest that pumpkinseeds use chemical rather than visual cues to discriminate between infected and uninfected conspecifics during shoaling decisions. Our study highlighted the importance of considering different sensory cues as well as environmental parasite abundance when studying avoidance and shoaling behaviours, especially considering the growing impacts of global changes on the sensory landscape and parasite abundance in freshwater ecosystems. • We conducted two-choice experiments on wild-caught pumpkinseed sunfish. • Visual and chemical cues were not redundant for conspecific avoidance. • Parasite-naive fish avoided chemical infection cues, but experienced ones did not. • Fish used chemical but not visual cues to discern infected and healthy conspecifics. • Indirectly transmitted parasites can affect avoidance behaviour.

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 score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal BehaviourSame topicParasite Biology and Host InteractionsFrench-language works237,207