Close‐range, in‐flight integration of olfactory and visual information by a host‐seeking bark beetle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A long‐standing controversy questions whether foraging bark beetles assess the suitability of individual host trees using cues at close range while flying or engage in random landing followed by contact assessment. In most cases, visual discrimination mechanisms are ignored. We show that pheromone‐responding mountain pine beetles (MPB), Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), can visually discriminate between ‘host’ (black) and ‘non‐host’ (white) traps arranged in small clusters, in the absence of additional host olfactory information, and that males (but not females) demonstrate a greater preference for combined host visual and olfactory cues. However, white, non‐host traps baited with a host volatile were as attractive as unbaited, black host traps. Our results support the hypotheses that when deciding to land, the MPBs integrate visual and olfactory information and can process cues in both sensory modes at relatively close range (≤2 m). Thus, host selection mechanisms in this species are unlikely to be random with respect to either sensory mode.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".