MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2491415492 · doi:10.1111/bij.12847

Multiple lines of anti-predator defence in the spotted lanternfly,<i>Lycorma delicatula</i>(Hemiptera: Fulgoridae)

2016· article· en· W2491415492 on OpenAlexafffund
Changku Kang, Hyungmin Moon, Thomas N. Sherratt, Sang‐im Lee, Piotr G. Jabłoński

Bibliographic record

VenueBiological Journal of the Linnean Society · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHemiptera Insect Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Research Foundation of Korea
KeywordsBiologyPredationPredatorCrypsisZoologyHemipteraJumpingJumping spiderEcologyRange (aeronautics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many species have evolved a suite of anti-predator defences, rather than a single defence. These multiple defences may operate in synchrony or separately at different stages of predation sequence to protect the prey. However, empirical documentation on how multiple defences, as a whole, combine to protect prey, as well as quantitative evaluations of how and when they are deployed, are scarce. In the present study, we investigated the univoltine spotted lanternfly, Lycorma delicatula, which has cryptic forewings, defensive chemicals, and multiple behavioural defences, including rapid jumping away, sudden display of its conspicuous hindwings and abdomen (a startle/deimatic display), and death feigning. The aims of the present study were to: (1) characterize the modality of sensory stimuli that trigger the behavioural defences; (2) identify the stage(s) of the predation sequence in which L. delicatula employs each behavioural defence; and (3) investigate a range of intrinsic/extrinsic factors that might affect the execution of anti-predator responses. First, a preliminary test that simulated a range of sensory stimuli on L. delicatula suggested that they rarely responded to nontactile stimuli. This suggests that the species relies on crypsis as a primary defence unless it is physically contacted. Next, we simulated predatory attacks on the species at two different times of year (early and late season as adults). When physically contacted, the primary response of individuals was jumping away. However, when jumping was initially hindered (by grabbing), they then tended to employ deimatic display. Intriguingly, we found clear seasonal differences in these post-attack defences: after performing deimatic display, individuals were more likely to jump away in the early season, whereas death feigning was more frequent in the late season. We present adaptive explanations for this seasonal switch in anti-predator responses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiological Journal of the Linnean SocietySame topicHemiptera Insect StudiesFrench-language works237,207