MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898098062 · doi:10.1111/eea.12727

Influence of light on sound production behaviors in the emerald ash borer, <i> <scp>A</scp> grilus planipennis </i>

2018· article· en· W2898098062 on OpenAlexafffund
Peter J. Silk, Lucas E. Roscoe, Matt Brophy, Jessica Price, Krista Ryall

Bibliographic record

VenueEntomologia Experimentalis et Applicata · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsForest Protection Limited (Canada)Natural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
FundersNatural Resources CanadaAtlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
KeywordsEmerald ash borerBiologyBuprestidaeAgrilusZoologyMatingEcologyFraxinus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recent research has demonstrated that the emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), uses visual and chemical cues when locating potential mates and host trees. Here, we present the first evidence of the production of possible acoustic cues generated by adult males and females. We demonstrate for the first time that simultaneous wing opening and head ‘pumping’ in both males and females produce specific and distinct sounds. Acoustic recordings demonstrate that these sounds consist of a phrase comprising a ‘click’ generated by wing opening, followed by two separate chirps corresponding to the outward and subsequent inward movement of the head. Mean primary and secondary chirp durations were 0.332 ± 0.038 and 0.414 ± 0.046 s for males and 0.414 ± 0.046 and 0.389 ± 0.032 s for females, respectively. Overall mean phrase durations were 0.905 ± 0.114 s in males and 1.133 ± 0.133 s in females. Mean maximum phrase frequencies were 8 706.1 ± 141.1 and 7 885.0 ± 499.2 Hz in males and females, respectively. There were no significant differences in sound parameters between males and females. To determine whether these events were related to mating pair formation, we observed the occurrence of these events in adults paired with either another male or female and lone adults, and observed the number of mating pairs in copula formed during or shortly after sound production by either of the mating party. The mean number of sound‐generating events per min was significantly greater in males paired with females (0.75 ± 0.15) and/or other males (0.55 ± 0.23) vs. unpaired males (0.14 ± 0.06). Conversely, the mean number of sound‐producing events for lone females (1.4 ± 0.2) was significantly greater than for females paired with either males (0.49 ± 0.18) or other females (0.38 ± 0.10). No mating pairs in copula were formed during any of our observations. Scanning electron microscopy images showed the presence of possible pars stridens and plectrum structures on the ventral surfaces of the gula and pronotum in both males and females. Furthermore, we observed that the proportion of males and females exhibiting these specific behaviors were significantly greater under both halogen and incandescent light than under darkness, signifying the importance of light source or type on the production of acoustic signals. Although we did not find evidence of these behaviors being related to the courtship sequence, our results indicate the presence of a previously undescribed sound‐generation behavior in A. planipennis that is significantly influenced by light conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.261
Threshold uncertainty score0.709

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEntomologia Experimentalis et ApplicataSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207