Resource distribution mediates synchronization of physiological rhythms in locust groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Synchronized behaviour is common in animal groups. In ant colonies, synchronization occurs because active ants stimulate their neighbours to activity. We use oscillator theory to explain how stimulation from active neighbours synchronizes activity in groups of solitarious locusts via entrainment of internal physiological rhythms. We also show that the spatial distribution of food resources controls coupling between individual locusts and the emergence of synchronized activity. In locusts (Schistocerca gregaria), individual schedules of activity and quiescence arise from an irregular physiological oscillation in feeding excitation (i.e. hunger). We show that contact with an active neighbour increases the probability that a locust becomes active. This entrained activity decreases the time until the locust feeds, shifting the phase of its hunger oscillation. The locusts' internal physiological rhythms are thus brought into alignment and their activity becomes synchronized. When food resources are clumped, contact with active locusts increases, and this increase in the strength of coupling between individuals leads to greater synchronization of behaviour. Activity synchronization might have functional significance in inhibiting swarming when resources are dispersed and accelerating it in more favourable clumped environments.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".