Brown rats and house mice eavesdrop on each other’s volatile sex pheromone components
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mammalian pheromones often linger in the environment and thus are particularly susceptible to interceptive eavesdropping, commonly understood as a one-way dyadic interaction, where prey sense and respond to the scent of a predator. Here, we tested the "counterespionage" hypothesis that predator and prey co-opt each other's pheromone as a cue to locate prey or evade predation. We worked with wild brown rats (predator of mice) and wild house mice (prey of brown rats) as model species, testing their responses to pheromone-baited traps at infested field sites. The treatment trap in each of two trap pairs per replicate received sex attractant pheromone components (including testosterone) of male mice or male rats, whereas corresponding control traps received only testosterone, a pheromone component shared between mouse and rat males. Trap pairs disseminating male rat pheromone components captured 3.05 times fewer mice than trap pairs disseminating male mouse pheromone components, and no female mice were captured in rat pheromone-baited traps, indicating predator aversion. Indiscriminate captures of rats in trap pairs disseminating male rat or male mouse pheromone components, and fewer captures of rats in male mouse pheromone traps than in (testosterone-only) control traps indicate that rats do eavesdrop on the male mouse sex pheromone but do not exploit the information for mouse prey location. The counterespionage hypothesis is supported by trap catch data of both mice and rats but only the mice data are in keeping with our predictions for motive of the counterespionage.
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 | 0.001 | 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".