All sugars ain't sweet: selection of particular mono-, di- and trisaccharides by western carpenter ants and European fire ants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ants select sustained carbohydrate resources, such as aphid honeydew, based on many factors including sugar type, volume and concentration. We tested the hypotheses (H1–H3) that western carpenter ants,Camponotus modoc,seek honeydew excretions fromCinara splendensaphids based solely on the presence of sugar constituents (H1), prefer sugar solutions containing aphid-specific sugars (H2) and preferentially seek sugar solutions with higher sugar content (H3). We further tested the hypothesis (H4) that workers of bothCa. modocand European fire ants,Myrmica rubra, selectively consume particular mono-, di- and trisaccharides. In choice bioassays with entire ant colonies, sugar constituents in honeydew (but not aphid-specific sugar) as well as sugar concentration affected foraging decisions byCa. modoc. BothCa. modocandM. rubraforagers preferred fructose to other monosaccharides (xylose, glucose) and sucrose to other disaccharides (maltose, melibiose, trehalose). Conversely, when offered a choice between the aphid-specific trisaccharides raffinose and melezitose,Ca. modocandM. rubrafavoured raffinose and melezitose, respectively. Testing the favourite mono-, di- and trisaccharide head-to-head, both ant species favoured sucrose. While both sugar type and sugar concentration are the ultimate cause for consumption by foraging ants, strong recruitment of nest-mates to superior sources is probably the major proximate cause.
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 | 0.001 | 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".