Time flies: time of day and social environment affect cuticular hydrocarbon sexual displays in <i>Drosophila serrata</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent work on Drosophila cuticular hydrocarbons (CHCs) challenges a historical assumption that CHCs in flies are largely invariant. Here, we examine the effect of time of day and social environment on a suite of sexually selected CHCs in Drosophila serrata. We demonstrate that males become more attractive to females during the time of day that flies are most active and when most matings occur, but females become less attractive to males during the same time of day. These opposing temporal changes may reflect differences in selection among the sexes. To evaluate the effect of social environment on male CHC attractiveness, we manipulated male opportunity for mating: male flies were housed either alone, with five females, with five males or with five males and five females. We found that males had the most attractive CHCs when with females, and less attractive CHCs when with competitor males. Social environment mediated how male CHC attractiveness cycled: males housed with females and/or other males showed temporal changes in CHC attractiveness, whereas males housed alone did not. In total, our results demonstrate temporal patterning of male CHCs that is dependent on social environment, and suggest that such changes may be beneficial to males.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".