The effect of substrate on the efficacy of seismic courtship signal transmission in the jumping spider <i>Habronattus dossenus</i> (Araneae:Salticidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The jumping spider Habronattus dossenus Griswold 1987 (Salticidae) communicates using seismic signals during courtship and can be found on rocks, sand and leaf litter. We examined the filtering properties of, and tested the efficacy of male courtship signals on, these natural substrates. These substrates have drastically different filtering properties at the distances at which the males court. Rocks sharply attenuated all frequencies, with considerable variability among different rocks. Desert sand showed band-pass properties, attenuating frequencies contained in the animal's signal. Leaf litter passed all frequencies and was the most favourable signalling environment. In behavioural trials, the proportion of males mating successfully was significantly higher on leaf litter than on rocks or desert sand. Males did not modify their courtship behaviour on different substrates. Therefore, the effectiveness of male courtship seismic signals appears to be strongly constrained by the available substratum resources.
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 | 0.001 | 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".