Vibratory communication signal produced by male western conifer seed bugs (Hemiptera: Coreidae)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We tested the hypothesis that the western conifer seed bug, Leptoglossus occidentalis Heidemann, uses a substrate-borne vibratory signal for short-range communication. To record such a signal we used computers equipped with data-acquisition hardware and software, microphones sensitive to sonic and (or) ultrasonic frequencies, membrane-type and piezoelectric speakers capable of emitting sonic and ultrasonic sound, and piezoelectric devices capable of emitting low-level, low-frequency vibrations. By tapping their abdomen on substrate, males produced a wide-band vibratory signal 20 dB (sound pressure level; 0 dB = 20 µPa) above ambient sound, with dominant frequencies of 115 ± 10 and 175 ± 15 Hz and a distinct temporal pattern. There was no evidence for ( i ) ultrasonic signal components; ( ii ) signals produced by females or nymphs, or ( iii ) repeated trains of signal pulses. In two-choice arena experiments, males and females preferred the played-back recording of the male-produced substrate-borne signal over silent controls, whereas nymphs showed no preference for either stimulus. In two-choice dowel experiments with hickory wood or lodgepole pine crossbeams, females (unlike males or nymphs) preferred played-back recordings of the same signal over controls. In two-choice field experiments, this signal emitted in the air by piezoelectric devices or transferred through a wire to lodgepole pine branches attracted more L. occidentalis than did silent controls. Our data support the hypothesis that L. occidentalis uses a substrate-borne vibratory signal for short-range communication. The use of such a signal is consistent with reports on communication by other true bug species.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it