MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Good welfare is attractive: Female zebrafish (Danio rerio) prefer males from complex, well-resourced conditions over males from conventional barren laboratory tanks

2025· article· en· W4408711733 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Animal Behaviour Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicZebrafish Biomedical Research Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDanioZebrafishAnimal welfareBiologyZoologyWelfareVeterinary medicineEcologyMedicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Applied ethologists often find that sub-optimal housing (e.g. barren versus 'enriched', well-resourced conditions) impairs animals' interactions with conspecifics. Furthermore, some housing effects on social/sexual interactions persist even in standardised test situations. For example, in mating tests on three mammalian and two insect species, males from sub-optimal housing have been shown to be less successful with females (e.g. less attractive to them) compared to males with better welfare. Here, we assessed whether similar effects occur in fish, using zebrafish ( Danio rerio, Tübingen strain) as models. In a purpose-built maze, 16 groups of ready-to-spawn females were each given choices between two pairs of enclosed males that had been raised and housed differentially (in either conventional laboratory tanks, ‘Barren’, or large, well-resourced ones, ‘WR’). After this ‘Choice Phase’, they were allowed to spawn via free access to one type of male (half WR, half Barren). All trials were run (and videos analysed) blind to housing, to avoid unconscious experimenter biases. Results showed that in the Choice Phase, WR males were significantly preferred over Barren, attracting more proximity from more females; while in the Spawning Phase, WR males also attracted more courtship, and tended to elicit fewer escape attempts. Some of these benefits of being WR were only detectable, however, if male body size was statistically controlled for, because of an independent effect of male size (longer males being more attractive, despite WR males being unexpectedly smaller). Females thus used multiple housing-sensitive cues to select preferred mates: body length, plus unknown attributes of WR males (which could involve improved cognitive abilities, better physical health, greater stress resilience, and/or signs of greater libido: all topics for future study). This suggests many future avenues for fish research, potentially leading to improved welfare and reproductive success for laboratory-housed zebrafish (and even other species in aquaculture and conservation breeding facilities). Furthermore, these results (along with the studies inspiring this experiment) add to applied ethologists' longstanding appreciation of animals' sensitivity to conspecific signals of emotion: they indicate that animals can also detect longer-term welfare states, perhaps even finding poor welfare unattractive. • Female zebrafish were offered males from tanks differing in quality. • Half came from conventional barren tanks, half from large well-resourced ones. • Females preferred the males from well-resourced, 'enriched' conditions. • This adds to growing evidence that housing quality affects social phenotypes. • How females detect males from better housing-conditions is as yet unknown.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.725
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.294 · 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