Behavioral avoidance of injured conspecific and predatory chemical stimuli by larvae of the aquatic caddisfly Hesperophylax occidentalis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prey animals often encounter situations that hinder their ability to conduct normal fitness-enhancing behaviors. Mating and foraging are frequently interrupted by predator vigilance and avoidance, and antipredator behavior. Many caddisfly larvae build protective cases that are carried with them throughout the aquatic life cycle. However, they are still vulnerable to predation, yet it is unknown the extent caddisflies use chemical cues for predator recognition and avoidance. We exposed larval caddisfly Hesperophylax occidentalis (Banks, 1908) to predatory, conspecific, and heterospecific chemical cues to determine if caddisfly larvae can use chemical stimuli alone for predator recognition and avoidance. Exposure to predator and injured conspecific chemicals elicited significant decreases in activity, while exposure to injured and uninjured heterospecific chemicals yielded no significant change in activity. The extended latency to move following exposure to predator kairomones indicates larval caddisflies utilize chemical cues for predator recognition and avoidance, and a similar decrease in movement associated with exposure to injured conspecifics suggests the presence of a chemical alarm cue.
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) | 0.001 | 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".