Weighting of Celestial and Terrestrial Cues in the Monarch Butterfly Central Complex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Monarch butterflies rely on external cues for orientation during their annual long-distance migration from Northern US and Canada to Central Mexico. These external cues can be celestial cues, such as the sun or polarized light, which are processed in a brain region termed the central complex (CX). Previous research typically focused on how individual simulated celestial cues are encoded in the butterfly's CX. However, in nature, the butterflies perceive several celestial cues at the same time and need to integrate them to effectively use the compound of all cues for orientation. In addition, a recent behavioral study revealed that monarch butterflies can rely on terrestrial cues, such as the panoramic skyline, for orientation and use them in combination with the sun to maintain a directed flight course. How the CX encodes a combination of celestial and terrestrial cues and how they are weighted in the butterfly's CX is still unknown. Here, we examined how input neurons of the CX, termed TL neurons, combine celestial and terrestrial information. While recording intracellularly from the neurons, we presented a sun stimulus and polarized light to the butterflies as well as a simulated sun and a panoramic scene simultaneously. Our results show that celestial cues are integrated linearly in these cells, while the combination of the sun and a panoramic skyline did not always follow a linear integration of action potential rates. Interestingly, while the sun and polarized light were invariantly weighted between individual neurons, the sun stimulus and panoramic skyline were dynamically weighted when both stimuli were simultaneously presented. Taken together, this dynamic weighting between celestial and terrestrial cues may allow the butterflies to flexibly set their cue preference during navigation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".