Effect of using different types of animal dung for feeding and nesting by the dung beetle <i>Onthophagus lecontei</i> (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Onthophagus lecontei Harold, 1871 is an American dung beetle that feeds on the dungs of a variety of species, perhaps owing to hitherto unknown differences in their effect on its development and survival. We tested whether using different types of dung (exotic and native) for feeding and nesting affects O. lecontei’s progeny. Adult beetles from the field were randomly paired and assigned to horse (Equus ferus Boddaert, 1785), goat (Capra hircus aegagrus Erxleben, 1777; domestic), or wild rabbit (Sylvilagus cunicularius (Waterhouse, 1848); native, endemic) dung under laboratory conditions. The number, mass, and volume of their brood masses, the number of emerged beetles, adult size, and duration of preimaginal stages (egg, larva, and pupa) were evaluated. There were differences for all variables: O. lecontei reared in wild rabbit dung produced more progeny, more brood masses, and larger adult beetles, and offspring remained in each preimaginal stage for a shorter period of time. Onthophagus lecontei is able to feed and nest using all three types of dung, but wild rabbit dung is the most favorable for its development. This suggests the existence of a long-standing association between O. lecontei and this native rabbit and the optional relationships with introduced herbivores; plasticity in reproductive behavior that may be useful when the optimal resource is not available.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".