Predator-naïve fall field crickets respond to the chemical cues of wolf spiders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few studies have addressed whether terrestrial insects assess predation risk via chemical cues. We exposed predator-naïve fall field crickets ( Gryllus pennsylvanicus Burmeister, 1838) to filter paper containing the chemical cues of three wolf spiders ( Hogna helluo (Walckenaer, 1837), Rabidosa rabida (Walckenaer, 1837), Rabidosa punctulata (Hentz, 1844)), the house cricket ( Acheta domesticus L., 1758,) and blank filter paper. Crickets exhibited greater immobility and reduced speed of movement when exposed to chemical cues of all three spider species. Crickets exhibited reduced speed with increasing mass of R. punctulata, suggesting that larger spiders may pose a greater risk. Cricket response did not differ between cues of H. helluo fed conspecific crickets versus H. helluo fed house crickets, suggesting that crickets cannot distinguish between cues from H. helluo fed phylogenetically similar crickets. Our work nevertheless demonstrates that naïve field crickets respond to chemical cues of several species of wolf spiders.
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) | 0.000 | 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".