Do Larval Damselflies make Adaptive Choices When Exposed to Both Parasites and Predators?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The importance of multiple enemies from different trophic levels on investment in defence by prey has, with some exceptions, received little attention. Some defences may make the victim more susceptible to other enemies; this latter situation applies to predators and parasites of larval damselflies. Baker and Smith [ Oecologia 109 (1997) 622) showed that larval damselflies were as active in the presence of both mites and fish as they were when only mites were present, an apparently maladaptive behaviour that results in higher fish predation. In this paper, we further examine this maladaptive behavioural response to multiple enemies (fish predators and mite parasites) and test whether their defence responses are a result of the order in which they experience the parasite or predator, and/or if behavioural ‘personalities’ exist, such that some individuals show anti‐predator behaviours and other show anti‐parasite behaviours. Order of experience did not affect the four main behaviours (groom, crawl, turn and swim) exhibited when larval damselflies were simultaneously exposed to fish and mites. Grooming levels increased in response to mites, decreased in response to fish and when exposed to both mites and fish were similar to when they were exposed to mites alone. Duration of the other three behaviours was lower in the presence of both mites and fish. The crawling ‘personalities’ were evident. The apparently maladaptive response of high grooming levels in the presence of mites and fish is not a result of order of experience or ‘personalities’. It may be a result of relatively high encounter rates with mite parasites, compared with the encounter rates with fish. Lower encounter rates can result in diminishing investment in defence against an enemy.
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".