Olfactory Snake‐Predator Discrimination in the Cape Ground Squirrel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Small mammals have a number of means to detect and avoid predators, including visual, auditory and olfactory cues. Olfactory cues are particularly important for nocturnal or fossorial species where visual cues would not be as reliable. The Cape ground squirrel ( Xerus inauris ) is a semi‐fossorial, diurnal mammal from southern Africa. Cape ground squirrels encounter multiple species of predatory snake that pursue individuals underground where visual and social cues are limited. We assessed whether Cape ground squirrels use odours to discriminate between snakes by presenting a non‐venomous snake, a venomous snake and a control odour collected on polyethylene cubes to 11 adult female squirrels from 11 different social groups. Cape ground squirrels responded by inspecting the cube, displaying snake harassment–associated behaviours and decreasing time spent in close proximity to snake odours when compared with a control. They also displayed discrimination between two snake species by increasing the frequency of cube inspection and increasing harassment behaviours with venomous snake odours when compared with non‐venomous snake odours. We conclude that Cape ground squirrels respond with snake‐specific antipredator behaviours when presented olfactory cues alone. Olfactory discrimination may be maintained by the decreased utility of other methods of predator detection: sight and group detection, in below‐ground encounters.
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) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".