Pheromone communication among sexes of the garden cross spider Araneus diadematus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chemical communication plays a fundamental role in many aspects of an animal's life from assessing habitat quality to finding mating partners. Behavioural observations show that chemical communication likewise plays an important role in spiders, but the contexts and the substances involved are little explored. Here, we investigate the chemical communication in the garden cross spider Araneus diadematus (Clerck, 1757) between and within the sexes. Using choice trials, we demonstrate that males are attracted to odours of adult females, but not to those of subadult females. Our data further suggest that adult females avoid odours of conspecific adult females, possibly in order to reduce reproductive competition with other females. Cuticle and silk extracts as well as headspace samples of subadult and adult virgin females were analysed via GC-MS. Available candidate compounds for the female sex pheromone were tested via electroantennography on palps (electropalpography) of adult virgin females and on females in behavioural trials. We propose sulcatone (6-methyl-5-hepten-2-one) as a candidate substance for the female volatile pheromone and several long-chained alkanes and alcohols as candidates for contact pheromones. Apart from demonstrating that attraction of males to females depends on the latter's developmental stage, our study suggests that pheromones can also play an important role between females, an aspect that requires further attention.
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".