Predatory interactions between Centruroides scorpions and the tarantula Brachypelma vagans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the Yucatan Peninsula, the tarantula Brachypelma vagans Ausserer 1875 is commonly associated with human settlements, as are the scorpions Centruroides gracilis Latreille 1804 and C. ochraceus Pocock 1898. Nonetheless, scorpions are virtually absent from villages showing a high density of tarantulas. Predatory interactions between these predators could explain the lack of local overlap. To test this hypothesis, we observed the behavioral interactions between B. vagans and C. gracilis or C. ochraceus in experimentally controlled conditions, and we compared these interactions to interactions between the tarantula and two prey species: cricket and cockroach. For observations, a pre-adult tarantula was placed in an experimental arena in which we introduced either a scorpion or an insect. In all, 115 trials were performed. We recorded time elapsed and behavioral responses: avoidance, attack, escape, capture, and attack success. Tarantulas preyed on all prey with the same attack success (63.8% ± 0.8%), but they attacked and captured cockroaches quicker and more often than the other prey (87% vs. 50%, and 57% vs. 30%, respectively). Scorpions attacked tarantulas in 25.5% of occasions, but they were never successful, and were killed in 9% of occasions. We conclude that tarantulas are potential predators of scorpions. Moreover, in villages where tarantulas are abundant they might prevent the presence of scorpions. Thus the presence of this non-aggressive tarantula may be beneficial from the human perspective.
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".