The Rolling of Food by Dung Beetles Affects the Oviposition of Competing Flies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flies are the main competitors of dung beetles for oviposition sites and rolling dung beetles relocate their food to reduce interspecific competition. Furthermore, dung beetles deposit chemical substances on the food ball that may repel fly larvae and certain predators. In the present study, using Deltochilum furcatum, a dung beetle that does not exhibit parental care and the blow-fly, Lucilia cuprina, we tested the hypothesis that pygidial secretions deposited on the food ball could also make it less attractive as an oviposition site for flies. Food balls rolled by either D. furcatum males or females received significantly fewer eggs that balls that had not been rolled by beetles. Also, flies laid significantly fewer eggs on food balls treated with secretions collected from male pygidial glands. Reduced fly oviposition may be a direct effect of compounds the beetles deposited, acting as an allomone, and/or an indirect negative effect on the microbial community that stimulates fly oviposition. A model of the reproductive biology of this species is proposed.
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".