Hearing sensitivity is more relevant to acoustic conspicuousness than to mechanical constraints in crambid moths
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Moths evolved tympanal hearing organs to detect the echolocation calls of predatory bats. Moths’ auditory responses have been examined mainly for their sensitivity to the frequencies of bat cries: tympanate moths are basically tuned to the call frequencies of sympatric bats. Here, we add the finding that hearing sensitivity to ‘pulse duration’ in crambid moths is also affected by predation pressure from echolocating bats. Analysis of interspecific variation showed that minimum auditory thresholds had a significantly negative relationship with the forewing surface area, that is, acoustic conspicuousness to bat sonar, but no relationship with head width, which was assumed to correlate with tympanal organ size. Auditory thresholds increased as pulses shortened in the 1–10 ms duration range, and conspicuous moths with larger wing areas had lower thresholds than smaller moths. By contrast, ‘intraspecific’ variation, within a single population of the lurcerne moth, revealed no relationship between forewing area and any auditory characteristics. Moth hearing adapts to the echolocation pulse duration of sympatric bat communities, suggesting that evolutionary modification of hearing sensitivity is related to acoustic conspicuousness based on moth wing area.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".