Recovery of reef shark populations invokes anti‐predator behaviours in mesopredatory reef fishes on a coral reef
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Natural experiments where populations of large predators have recovered following management initiatives offer insights into the potential for these animals to structure communities via consumptive and nonconsumptive effects on their prey. Ashmore Reef, a coral reef off the coast of Western Australia, provides such an opportunity. Here, reef shark populations have increased significantly since the enforcement of a no-take MPA in 2008. This change has been accompanied by an increase in the abundance of medium and large mesopredatory teleosts, but a decline in small mesopredatory teleosts. We explored whether these changes in abundance were accompanied by changes in anti-predator (nonconsumptive) behaviours of mesopredators due to an increase in both acute and chronic risks of predation. We analysed videos from Baited Remote Underwater Video Systems (BRUVS) collected prior to the enforcement of no-take status in 2004 and after enforcement and shark recovery in 2016 to quantify any changes in anti-predator behaviours of small (<50 cm TL), medium (50-100 cm TL) and large (>100 cm TL) size classes of teleost mesopredators. Comparisons of the effect of chronic and acute risk on the total time teleosts spent in the BRUVS videos, proportional time spent on activities associated with various risks, and foraging intensity were made both within years (acute risk: in videos where sharks were absent compared to present) and between years (chronic risk: 2004 and 2016). Our results indicate that both small- and medium-sized mesopredatory fishes exhibit behaviours indicative of risk-induced trait responses (anti-predator behaviours) in the presence of reef sharks and that these seem to occur as a joint response to the interaction of acute and chronic risks. Our study suggests that the decline of small mesopredatory fishes following the recovery of reef sharks could be due to both the consumptive and nonconsumptive impacts of sharks as predators in this system. These results show that both chronic and acute risks seem to play significant roles in shaping behaviours of mesopredators.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".