Plasticity in Forest Tent Caterpillar Collective Foraging Schedules
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Self‐organization can generate synchronized group activity without external triggering cues, and schedules of self‐organized collective activity can vary with environmental conditions. This plasticity can improve group members’ ability to meet their requirements in different environments. In colonial caterpillars, synchronized colony foraging schedules have been postulated to depend either on avoidance of visual predators or on temperature effects on ectotherm physiology. We examine the foraging schedule of forest tent caterpillars ( Malacosoma disstria ) under different constant conditions to distinguish between these hypotheses. Plasticity in the foraging schedule was tested by keeping colonies under different constant regimes of light and temperature. Digital video and tracking software were used to record the colony's alternation between quiescent and active bouts. The duration and frequency of bouts was compared between treatments. The schedule of synchronized colony activity was not affected by lighting, but it accelerated at higher temperature, because of a decrease in the duration of both active and quiescent bouts. Forest tent caterpillars’ foraging schedule thus depends on the time required to accomplish the tasks of food finding (active bouts) and food processing (quiescent bouts). As caterpillars are ectotherms, locomotion and digestion rates increase at higher temperature and both tasks are accomplished faster. The forest tent caterpillar and the congeneric eastern tent caterpillar ( M. americanum ) both exhibit self‐organized synchronized collective foraging, but environmental modulation of foraging schedule differs between these species, according to differences in social organization and thermal ecology. Eastern tent caterpillars maintain a fixed foraging schedule under varying temperatures and use the tent to maintain high metabolic rates. In the forest tent caterpillar, flexibility of the foraging schedule in accordance with changes in metabolism lessens the constraints imposed by collective foraging. Synchronous foraging, where entire social groups travel together to and from feeding sites, is thought to have several fitness advantages including improved food finding, recruitment to profitable food sources, anti‐predator defense and group thermoregulation between foraging expeditions.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".