Auditory predator cues decrease herbivore survival and plant damage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The high fitness cost of predation selects prey capable of detecting risk cues and responding in ways that reduce their vulnerability. While the impacts of auditory predator cues have been extensively researched in vertebrate prey, much less is known about invertebrate species' responses and their potential to affect the wider food web. We exposed larvae of Spodoptera exigua, a slow-moving and vulnerable herbivore hunted by aerial predators, to recordings of wasp buzzing (risk cue), mosquito buzzing (no-risk cue), or a no-sound control in both laboratory and field settings. In the laboratory, wasp buzzing (but not mosquito buzzing) reduced survival relative to the control; there was, however, no effect on time to or weight at pupation in survivors. In the field, wasp buzzing reduced caterpillar herbivory and increased plant biomass relative to the control treatment. In contrast, mosquito buzzing reduced herbivory less than wasp buzzing and had no effect on plant biomass. The fact that wasp cues evoked strong responses in both experiments, while mosquito buzzing generally did not, indicates that caterpillars were responding to predation risk rather than sound per se. Such auditory cues may have an important but largely unappreciated impacts on terrestrial invertebrate herbivores and their host plants.
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) | 0.002 | 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".