Divergent Embryo Responses to Chemical Cues in Two Freshwater Fishes with Different Parental Care Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chemical information is one of the most important modes of communication among aquatic organisms. However, it remains unclear whether fish embryos are innately responsive to ecologically-related chemical cues from the cues of their cohort competitors, potential caring or risky cues from parents, or chemical alarm cues from damaged embryos, and whether these response patterns differ between species that model alternative parental care strategies. Here, we examined embryo responses in heart rate and incubation performance to different conspecific chemical cues (companion embryo odours, maternal odours, maternal + companion odours, embryonic alarm cues, or water controls) in zebrafish (Danio rerio; no parental care) and Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus; high parental care). Zebrafish embryos did not respond to companion embryo odours but did respond similarly to maternal odours and alarm cues consistent with detecting elevated risk levels. In contrast, Nile tilapia embryos only demonstrated significant risk responses to embryonic alarm cues. These findings indicate that embryos of both species can innately recognize alarm cues but differ in their response patterns to conspecific odours. The results highlight that parental care strategies may influence intergenerational chemical communication in fish embryos.
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".