Communication ecology of webbing clothes moth: attractiveness and characterization of male‐produced sonic aggregation signals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: We tested the hypothesis that the webbing clothes moth, Tineola bisselliella (Hum.) (Lep., Tineidae), uses sonic signals in addition to pheromonal signals for communication. To record sound from individual or groups of moths of either or both sexes, we used a digital recording system, microphones sensitive to sonic and/or ultrasonic frequencies, and speakers capable of emitting sonic and ultrasonic sound. In a soundproof environment, male T. bisselliella produced sounds of 27 decibels (dB, sound pressure level; 0 dB corresponds to 20 μ Pa), with a base frequency of 40–50 Hz and a harmonic frequency of 80–100 Hz. Sound intensity and frequency increased to 55 dB and 65–75 Hz (with ≥3 harmonic frequencies), respectively, when calling males were near (<2 cm) conspecifics of either sex. There was no evidence that females produce sound and no evidence for ultrasonic sound production by either sex. In Y‐tube bioassay experiments, virgin male and female T. bisselliella preferred played‐back sonic signals from males to silent control stimuli, whereas mated females showed no preference for either stimulus. In arena bioassay experiments, males as well as virgin and mated females preferred played‐back sonic signals from males over a white noise control. Use of pheromonal and sonic signals by T. bisselliella would be adaptive, because the capacity for sonic communication persists even if sensory adaptation or habituation to pheromonal signals occurred. This hypothesis is consistent with the fact that other inhabitants of enclosed microhabitats, such as the greater wax moth, Galleria mellonella L., and Indian meal moth, Plodia interpunctella (Hb.), have also evolved analogous multimodal communication systems.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".