MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Extinction of the acoustic startle response in moths endemic to a bat-free habitat

2004· article· en· W2139429822 on OpenAlexafffund
J. H. Fullard, John M. Ratcliffe, Amanda R. Soutar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evolutionary Biology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBat Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Geographic Society
KeywordsBiologyExtinction (optical mineralogy)HabitatEcologyZoologyStartle responseNeurosciencePaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most moths use ears solely to detect the echolocation calls of hunting, insectivorous bats and evoke evasive flight manoeuvres. This singularity of purpose predicts that this sensoribehavioural network will regress if the selective force that originally maintained it is removed. We tested this with noctuid moths from the islands of Tahiti and Moorea, sites where bats have never existed and where an earlier study demonstrated that the ears of endemic species resemble those of adventives although partially reduced in sensitivity. To determine if these moths still express the anti-bat defensive behaviour of acoustic startle response (ASR) we compared the nocturnal flight times of six endemic to six adventive species in the presence and absence of artificial bat echolocation sounds. Whereas all of the adventive species reduced their flight times when exposed to ultrasound, only one of the six endemic species did so. These differences were significant when tested using a phylogenetically based pairwise comparison and when comparing effect sizes. We conclude that the absence of bats in this habitat has caused the neural circuitry that normally controls the ASR behaviour in bat-exposed moths to become decoupled from the functionally vestigial ears of endemic Tahitian moths.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.630
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evolutionary BiologySame topicBat Biology and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207