Intraspecific acoustic communication and mechanical sensitivity of the tympanal ear of the gypsy moth <i> <scp>L</scp> ymantria dispar </i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Tympanal ears of female gypsy moths L ymantria dispar dispar ( L .) ( L epidoptera: E rebidae: L ymantriinae) are reportedly more sensitive than ears of conspecific males to sounds below 20 kHz. The hypothesis is tested that this differential sensitivity is a result of sex‐specific functional roles of sound during sexual communication, with males sending and females receiving acoustic signals. Analyses of sounds produced by flying males reveal a 33‐Hz wing beat frequency and 14‐kHz associated clicks, which remain unchanged in the presence of female sex pheromone. Females exposed to playback sounds of flying conspecific males respond with wing raising, fluttering and walking, generating distinctive visual signals that may be utilized by mate‐seeking males at close range. By contrast, females exposed to playback sounds of flying heterospecific males ( L ymantria fumida B utler) do not exhibit the above behavioural responses. Laser D oppler vibrometry reveals that female tympana are particularly sensitive to frequencies in the range produced by flying conspecific males, including the 33‐Hz wing beat frequency, as well as the 7‐kHz fundamental frequency and 14‐kHz dominant frequency of associated clicks. These results support the hypothesis that the female L . dispar ear is tuned to sounds of flying conspecific males. Based on previous findings and the data of the present study, sexual communication in L . dispar appears to proceed as: (i) females emitting sex pheromone that attracts males; (ii) males flying toward calling females; and (iii) sound signals from flying males at close range inducing movement in females, which, in turn, provides visual signals that could orient males toward females.
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".