Natural and synthetic vocalizations of brown rat pups, <i>Rattus norvegicus,</i> enhance attractiveness of bait boxes in laboratory and field experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rats are often neophobic and thus do not readily enter trap boxes which are mandated in rodent management to help reduce the risk of accidental poisoning or capture of non-target animals. Working with brown rats, Rattus norvegicus, as a model species, our overall objective was to test whether sound cues from pups could be developed as a means to enhance captures of rats in trap boxes. RESULTS: Recording vocalizations from three-day-old pups after removal from their natal nest with both sonic and ultrasonic microphones revealed frequency components in the sonic range (1.8-7.5 kHz) and ultrasonic range (18-24 kHz, 33-55 kHz, 60-96 kHz). In two-choice laboratory bioassays, playback recordings of these vocalizations induced significant phonotactic and arrestment responses by juvenile, subadult and adult female and male rats. The effectiveness of engineered 'synthetic' rat pup sounds was dependent upon their frequency components, sound durations and the sound delivery system. Unlike other speakers, a piezoelectric transducer emitting sound bursts of 21 kHz with a 63-KHz harmonic, and persisting for 20-300 ms, proved highly effective in attracting and arresting adult female rats. In a field experiment, a battery-powered electronic device fitted with a piezoelectric transducer and driven by an algorithm that randomly generated sound cues resembling those recorded from rat pups and varying in fundamental frequency (19-23 kHz), duration (20-300 ms) and intermittent silence (300-5000 ms) significantly enhanced captures of rats in trap boxes baited with a food lure and soiled bedding material of adult female rats. CONCLUSION: Our study provides proof of concept that rat-specific sound cues or signals can be effectively reproduced and deployed as a means to enhance capture of wild rats. © 2016 Society of Chemical Industry.
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".