A blend of formic acid, benzoic acid, and aliphatic alkanes mediates alarm recruitment responses in western carpenter ants, <i>Camponotus </i><i>modoc</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Formicine ants in distress spray alarm pheromone which typically recruits nestmates for help. Studying the western carpenter ant, Camponotus modoc Wheeler (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), our objectives were to (1) determine the exocrine glands that contain alarm recruitment pheromone, (2) identify the key alarm recruitment pheromone components, and (3) ascertain the pheromone components that are discharged by distressed ants. In Y‐tube olfactometer experiments, extracts of poison glands, but not of Dufour’s glands, elicited anemotactic responses from worker ants. Gas chromatographic‐mass spectrometric analyses of poison gland extracts revealed the presence of (1) aliphatic alkanes (undecane, tridecane, pentadecane, heptadecane), (2) aliphatic alkenes [(Z)‐7‐pentadecene, (Z)‐7‐ and (Z)‐8‐heptadecene], (3) two acids (formic, benzoic), and (4) other oxygenated compounds (hexadecan‐1‐ol, hexadecyl formate, hexadecyl acetate). Testing the responses of worker ants in Y‐tube olfactometers to complete and partial synthetic blends of these compounds revealed that the acids and the alkanes are essential alarm pheromone components. In two‐choice arena bioassays, micro‐locations treated with synthetic alarm pheromone recruited worker ants. Acids and alkanes were abundant in the poison gland and the Dufour’s gland, respectively, suggesting that the alarm pheromone components originate from both glands. Moreover, alarm pheromone sprays of ants differed in that all sprays contained formic acid but only some also contained alkanes, implying that ants can independently discharge the content of either one or both glands in accordance with the type of distress incident they experience.
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) | 0.001 | 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".