Acoustic signalling in the destructive bark beetle genus Dendroctonus (Curculionidae: Scolytinae) with emphasis on Dendroctonus valens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acoustic signalling is common in bark beetles (Curculionidae: Scolytinae) but has been underappreciated in the literature, resulting in many unanswered questions regarding their acoustic ecology.The goal of this work was to answer some outstanding questions in the economically important Dendroctonus genus using mainly Dendroctonus valens.Dendroctonus spp.produce complex and variable acoustic signals in many contexts.Addressing the question of why they signal, I found that during courtship the ultimate function of signals was linked to female mate choice.Not only did chirp characteristics correlate with signaller fitness, but females differentiated between and made decisions about potential mates based on chirp variability in courtship song performances.The question of how chirp variability is produced was then addressed.I found the proximate mechanism of chirp production is a form of 'spring stridulation', where elastic potential energy is stored as fuel for stridulation.Altering the number of times the energy store was reloaded during a chirp led to the variable pulse pattern of the distinct chirp varieties.Finally, I addressed the question of sexual dimorphism in sound production.I noted that females produced sound in the contexts of disturbance and territoriality and further that they do so by way of an alternative mechanism to that of sound production in males.However, female sounds were erratic and rare, and their presence did not evoke a conclusive behavioural response in conspecifics, leading to an overall lack of support for a communicative function of female sound.My thesis research forms the most comprehensive story of the ultimate and proximate nature of sound production in both sexes of a destructive group of tree-killing bark beetles.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".