Chemical risk cues impact fish behavior and thermal tolerance, but effects vary with predation experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In response to predation risk in their microhabitat, prey can use chemical risk cues to modulate their antipredator behaviors. However, prey experience with predators may alter the response to predator odors. Using two experiments and lake-side assays, we asked whether inter- and intraspecific experience with an invasive predator affected behavior and thermal tolerance of prey fishes in Lake Nabugabo, Uganda, a lake that experienced the introduction of the predatory Nile perch (Lates niloticus) in the early 1960s. In doing so, we evaluated how warming and predation risk can interact to impact prey fishes as both stressors may impact metabolism and energy use. Furthermore, we determined, for the first time, the thermal tolerance of the cyprinid Rastrineobola argentea and the characin Brycinus sadleri. We predicted that thermal tolerance would decline in the presence of predator risk and that shoaling behavior would increase with predator risk and conspecific disturbance cues. We first found that even 60 years post-invasion, three prey fishes in Lake Nabugabo failed to recognize Nile perch predator odors as risky and did not alter shoaling behaviors nor thermal tolerance. However, R. argentea, B. sadleri, and haplochromine cichlids increased shoaling behaviors in response to conspecific disturbance cues adding to the body of work demonstrating that disturbance cues can elicit antipredator behaviors in prey fishes. In contrast, in our second experiment, we compared the thermal tolerance of a population of the cichlid Pseudocrenilabrus multicolor that overlapped in the habitat with Nile perch to a population that had no habitat overlap with the predator. P. multicolor that co-occurred with Nile perch responded to Nile perch predator odors like predator odors from a native catfish predator, whereas predator-naïve cichlids failed to respond. Taken together, our experiments illustrate the importance of experience with a predator in the perception of predator odors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".