Comparative exploratory movements of two terrestrial isopods (suborder: Oniscidea), in response to humidity and availability of food
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Unfavourable conditions within familiar environments may prompt organisms to make forays into other habitats, at least temporarily. This behaviour is in turn linked to key demographic processes such as immigration, emigration, and eventually, metapopulation dynamics. How such movements are triggered by environmental conditions (much less their interaction effects) has rarely been experimentally tested. To address this, we examined how environmental conditions (3 levels of food and 3 levels of humidity) within a microcosm affect the movements of two species of isopods (Armadillidium vulgare and Porcellio scaber) out of their familiar habitat. We used web-camera checkpoints to record the movements of individually marked animals as they conducted forays along corridors that lead to new, unused habitats. Thirty-six trials were run in total for each species, with each trial involving 16 animals (8 ♂♂, 8 ♀♀). Relatively unfavourable conditions of low humidity, low food levels, and their interaction prompted changes to all the foray metrics we measured. However, different levels of mobility and tolerance to desiccation between the two species also appeared linked to the degree of responses, e.g., Porcellio demonstrated a greater tendency to depart from familiar habitat under low humidity, possibly due to their superior mobility and greater susceptibility to desiccation. This study improves our understanding of how different environmental conditions act in concert to affect the exploratory movements away from familiar habitat, and how these responses differ even for closely-related species.
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 | 0.001 | 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".