Variability in the sonic muscles of the Lusitanian toadfish (Halobatrachus didactylus): acoustic signals may reflect individual quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animal vocalizations are good examples of signals that have been shaped by sexual selection and often contribute to resolve contests or the choice of mates. We relate the mass of the sound-producing muscles of a highly vocal fish species, the Lusitanian toadfish ( Halobatrachus didactylus (Bloch and Schneider, 1801)), with the sender’s physical features, such as body size, and reproductive and body condition. In this species, both sexes are known to emit sounds during agonistic interactions and males rely on their mate attraction vocalizations to reproduce. Sonic muscles were highly variable among males (CV = 40%) and females (CV = 33%) and showed sexual dimorphism. Regression analysis showed that variability in the sonic muscles was best explained by total length and fish condition in males and females. Liver mass in both genders, and the mass of the testes accessory glands, also explained sonic muscle variability. These variables explained 96% and 91% of the sonic muscle mass variability in males and females, respectively. As in teleost fishes sonic muscle mass correlates to particular sound acoustic features, we propose that in the Lusitanian toadfish sounds can inform the receiver about the sender’s quality, such as body size and condition, which are critical information in contests and mate choice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".