There’s no place like home: the contribution of direct and extended phenotypes on the expression of spider aggressiveness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Architectural constructions allow animals to modify their environment in order to improve their reproductive success. Constructions also modulate the expression of individual behavior, ultimately affecting the presence and importance of animal personality within populations. The exact impact of constructions on personality is seldom investigated. We quantified experimentally the impact of web characteristics on individual foraging behavior in the Western black widow spider (Latrodectus hesperus). We assayed aggressiveness toward a prey cue, and boldness while individuals resided on their own web versus after being translocated onto webs built by con-specifics. We quantified the importance of individual differences in aggressiveness and boldness while accounting for differences in web characteristics. We tested for relationships between web building, aggressiveness, and boldness. Web characteristics affected spider aggressiveness and interacted with individual web-building behavior to explain up to a fifth of the variation in foraging aggression, but did not affect spider boldness. Even after accounting for web characteristics, individuals still exhibited important differences in aggressiveness. We detected no relationship between an individual’s aggressiveness behavioral type and the characteristics of the web it built. Surprisingly, web characteristics impacted aggressiveness differently from one individual to the next. Hence the effect of web characteristics on foraging behavior might depend on condition or past experience. Webs contributed mostly to the variation in aggressiveness within-individuals. Variation in web building behavior might affect the amount of consistent differences in foraging, mating, and anti-predator behavior among individuals and needs to be accounted for when quantifying individual variation in behavior in spiders.
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".