Food fights in house crickets, <i>Acheta domesticus</i>, and the effects of body size and hunger level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animals often compete directly with conspecifics for food resources, and fighting success can be positively related to relative resource-holding power (RHP) and relative resource value (i.e., motivation to fight). Despite the ease of manipulating resource value during fights over food (by manipulating hunger levels), most studies have focused on male fighting in relation to gaining access to mates. In this study, pairwise contests over single food items were used to examine the effects of being the first to acquire a resource, relative body mass, relative body size (femur length), and relative level of food deprivation (i.e., hunger) on competitive feeding ability in male and female house crickets, Acheta domesticus. Only when the food pellet was movable did acquiring the resource first improve fighting success. When the pellet was fastened to the test arena, increased relative hunger level and high relative body mass both increased the likelihood of a takeover. However, the effects of body mass disappeared when scaled to body size. When the attacker and defender were equally hungry, larger relative body size increased takeover success but, when the attacker was either more or less hungry, body size had little effect on the likelihood of a takeover. Thus fight outcomes were dependent on an interaction between RHP and motivational asymmetries and on whether the resource was movable or stationary. Contest duration was not related to the magnitude of morphological differences between opponents, suggesting that assessment of fighting ability may be brief or nonexistent during time-limited animal contests over food items.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".