Diel Cycles in Chemosensory Behaviors of Free‐Ranging Rattlesnakes Lying in Wait for Prey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The sensory ecology of foragers is fundamentally influenced by changes in environmental conditions such as ambient light. Changes in ambient light may hinder the effectiveness of particular senses (e.g., impaired vision at night), but many predators rely on multiple sensory systems and may continue to forage despite changes in light availability. Exactly how predator behaviors and sensory systems compensate under changes in light availability in the field is not well understood. We used radio telemetry and portable video surveillance cameras to quantify the sit‐and‐wait chemosensory foraging behavior of free‐ranging red diamond ( Crotalus ruber ) and northern Pacific ( Crotalus oreganus oreganus ) rattlesnakes during day and night periods. The two most common behaviors we observed were chemosensory probes, a behavior we describe in detail for the first time, and mouth gapes. During chemosensory probes, rattlesnakes extend their head beyond their coil, explore the surrounding area while tongue‐flicking, and subsequently return to a stationary position inside their coil. Foraging rattlesnakes probed at significantly higher rates during nocturnal vs. diurnal hours. Similarly, mouth gaping occurred during a higher percentage of nocturnal vs. diurnal hours for foraging snakes. Nearly half of all mouth gapes were followed immediately with a chemosensory probe, suggesting that mouth gaping also serves a chemosensory function in this context. Our results suggest that chemical cues play an increasingly important role in mediating rattlesnake foraging behavior at night. Examining how abiotic factors, such as light availability, influence the sensory ecology of free‐ranging predators is essential for accurately characterizing their interactions with prey.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".