Data from: Trust thy neighbour in times of trouble: background risk alters how tadpoles release and respond to disturbance cues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In aquatic environments, uninjured prey escaping a predator release chemical disturbance cues into the water. However, it is unknown whether these cues are a simple physiological by-product of increased activity or whether they represent a social signal that is under some control by the sender. Here, we exposed wood frog tadpoles (Lithobates sylvaticus) to either a high or low background risk environment and tested their responses to disturbance cues (or control cues) produced by tadpoles from high-risk or low-risk backgrounds. We found an interaction between risk level associated with the cue donor and cue recipient. While disturbance cues from low-risk donors did not elicit an antipredator response in low-risk receivers, they did in high-risk receivers. In addition, disturbance cues from high-risk donors elicited a marked antipredator response in both low- and high-risk receivers. The response of high-risk receivers to disturbance cues from high-risk donors was commensurate to other treatments, indicating an all-or-nothing response. Our study provides evidence of differential production and perception of social cues and provides insights into their function and evolution in aquatic vertebrates. Given the widespread nature of disturbance cues in aquatic prey, there may exist a social signalling system that remains virtually unexplored by ecologists.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".