MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4290830787 · doi:10.1111/jeb.14067

The protective value of the colour and shape of the mountain katydid's antipredator defence

2022· article· en· W4290830787 on OpenAlexaff
Julia Riley, Tonya M. Haff, Julia Ryeland, Eleanor Drinkwater, Kate D. L. Umbers

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evolutionary Biology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsMount Allison University
FundersAustralian Research CouncilWestern Sydney UniversityHermon Slade FoundationLinnean Society of NSW
KeywordsAposematismCamouflageBiologyCrypsisPredationEcologyZoologyPredator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Deimatic behaviour is performed by prey when attacked by predators as part of an antipredator strategy. The behaviour is part of a sequence that consists of several defences, for example they can be preceded by camouflage and followed by a hidden putatively aposematic signal that is only revealed when the deimatic behaviour is performed. When displaying their hidden signal, mountain katydids (Acripeza reticulata) hold their wings vertically, exposing striking red and black stripes with blue spots and oozing an alkaloid-rich chemical defence derived from its Senecio diet. Understanding differences and interactions between deimatism and aposematism has proven problematic, so in this study we isolated the putative aposematic signal of the mountain katydid's antipredator strategy to measure its survival value in the absence of their deimatic behaviour. We manipulated two aspects of the mountain katydid's signal, colour pattern and whole body shape during display. We deployed five kinds of clay models, one negative control and four katydid-like treatments, in 15 grids across part of the mountain katydid's distribution to test the hypothesis that their hidden signal is aposematic. If this hypothesis holds true, we expected that the models, which most closely resembled real katydids would be attacked the least. Instead, we found that models that most closely resembled real katydids were the most likely to be attacked. We suggest several ideas to explain these results, including that the deimatic phase of the katydid's display, the change from a camouflaged state to exposing its hidden signal, may have important protective value. Abstract Deimatic behavior is part of a sequence that consists of several defenses. For example, mountain katydids display a hidden antipredator signal by opening their wings and holding them vertically. This exposes red and black stripes with blue spots on their abdomen. In this study, we isolated the colour and shape aspects of the katydid’s antipredator display to measure its survival value in the absence of deimatic behavior. We deployed five types of clay models across part of the katydid’s distribution and found that models resembling real katydids were the most likely to be attacked. This may indicate that the deimatic phase of their display may have important protective value.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.185 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evolutionary BiologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207