MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110684401 · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-79075-7

Natural history of social and sexual behavior in fruit flies

2020· article· en· W3110684401 on OpenAlexafffund
Reuven Dukas

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect behavior and control techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Arizona
KeywordsCourtshipAggressionMatingBiologyEcologyNatural historyZoologyDemographyPsychologySocial psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The past 2 decades have seen fruit flies being widely adopted for research on social behavior and aggression. This fruitful research, however, has not been well tied to fruit flies' natural history. To address this knowledge gap, I conducted a field study. My goal was to inform future research conducted in artificial surroundings, and to inspire new investigations that can rely more heavily on fruit flies' actual natural behavior. My two main novel findings were first, that flies in the field showed significant sociability, as they formed social groups rather than dispersed randomly among fruits of similar quality. Second, males showed fair levels of aggression towards each other as indicated by a lunging rate of 17 per hour, and lower rates of wing threat and boxing. Courtship was the most prominent activity on fruits, with females rejecting almost all males' advances. This resulted in an estimated mating rate of 0.6 per female per day. Flies showed a striking peak of activity early in the mornings, even at cold temperatures, followed by inactivity for much of the day and night. Flies, however, handled well high temperatures approaching 40 °C by hiding away from fruit and concentrating activity in the cooler, early mornings. My field work highlights a few promising lines of future research informed by fruit flies' natural history. Most importantly, we do not understand the intriguing dynamics that generate significant sociability despite frequent aggressive interactions on fruits. Males' responses to female rejection signals varied widely, perhaps because the signals differed in information content perceived by flies but not humans. Finally, flies tolerated cold early mornings perhaps owing to fitness benefits associated with increased mating and feeding opportunities at this time. Flies were adept at handling very high temperatures under the natural daily temperature fluctuations and availability of shelters, and this can inform more realistic research on the effects of global warming on animals in their natural settings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations66
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicInsect behavior and control techniquesFrench-language works237,207