Data from: Evidence for the Predator Attraction Hypothesis in an amphibian predator-prey system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many species possess damage-released chemical alarm cues that function in alerting nearby individuals to a predator attack. One hypothesis for the evolution and/or maintenance of such cues is the Predator Attraction Hypothesis, where predators, rather than prey, are the ‘intended’ recipients of these cues. If a predator attack attracts additional predators, these secondary predators might interfere with the predation event, providing the prey with a better chance to escape. In this study, we conducted two experiments to explore this hypothesis in an amphibian predator/prey system. In Experiment 1, we found that tiger salamanders (Ambystoma mavortium) showed a foraging attraction to chemical cues from wood frog (Lithobates sylvaticus) tadpoles. Salamanders that were experienced with tadpole prey, in particular, were strongly attracted to tadpole alarm cues. In Experiment 2, we observed experimental encounters between a tadpole and either one or two salamanders. The presence of the second predator caused salamanders to increase attack speed at the cost of decreased attack accuracy (i.e., increasing the probability that the tadpole would escape attacks). We also found that the mere presence of visual and chemical cues from a second predator did not affect this speed/accuracy trade-off but did cause enough of a distraction to increase tadpole survival. Thus, our findings are thus consistent with the Predator Attraction Hypothesis for the evolution and/or maintenance of alarm cues.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.006 |
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".