ArticleScientific reports2025
Chemical cues from a predatory fish (Parapercis colias) suppress feeding rates of the New Zealand sea urchin (Evechinus chloroticus).
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Changes in sea urchin behavior following detection of chemical cues from predatory fishes may influence key ecological dynamics but have rarely been experimentally quantified. Here, we measured feeding rates on a habitat-forming macroalgae by two size classes of the New Zealand sea urchin (Evechinus chloroticus) exposed to either ambient seawater or seawater carrying excretions from a predatory fish (blue cod; Parapercis colias). We created a Bayesian model that combined uncertainty in kelp growth rates and probability of urchin feeding to generate robust estimates of fish-exposure effects on multiple feeding metrics. We then compared our results to re-analyzed data characterizing behavioral responses of E. chloroticus to lobster cues (Jasus edwardsii). Larger urchins (6-8 cm test diameter) consumed ~ 40% less kelp in both predator treatments, exhibiting indistinguishable responses to blue cod and lobster despite being less susceptible to fish predation. Responses of smaller urchins (3-5 cm test diameter) to both predators were equivocal, though were more consistent with reduced feeding in the presence of lobster. Here we provide novel evidence that fish cues can suppress urchin feeding rates, even in the absence of urchin alarm cues, and discuss our findings in the context of the specificity of predator cue detection-reception pathways and possible mechanisms for risk-induced reductions in urchin feeding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.