Long- and short-range bimodal signals mediate mate location and recognition in yellow fever mosquitoes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Mate location and mate selection behavior in diurnally-active yellow fever mosquitoes, Aedes aegypti , take place in mating swarms but the mechanisms underlying swarm formation and long-range detection of females by males remain largely unexplored. In high-speed video recordings we show that incident light reflects off the wings of swarming males, and in behavioral experiments we demonstrate that swarm formation and mate recognition are mediated, in part, by these wingbeat light flashes and by wingbeat sound signals that operate at long and short range, respectively. To test for range-dependent effects of these signals, we presented ‘mating swarms’ in form of two paired 8-LED assemblies that were fitted with micro-speakers and placed either well separated in a large space or side-by-side in a small space. In the large but not the small space, the LED assembly flashing light at the wingbeat frequency of females (665 Hz), and emitting their wingbeat sound (665 Hz), attracted and prompted 5.8-times more alightings by males than the LED assembly emitting constant light and wingbeat sound. In the small space, the LED assembly flashing light and emitting wingbeat sound induced 5.0-times more alightings by males than the LED assembly flashing light without wingbeat sound. The attractiveness of light flash signals to males increased with increasing numbers of signals but did not vary according to their wavelengths (UV or blue). Females responded to light flash signals of males. As predicted by the sensory drive theory, light flashes had no signal function for crepuscular house mosquitoes, Culex pipiens .
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".