Feeding behavior and mobility of carabid beetles in response to perceived risk of predation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carabid beetles are common inhabitants of agricultural fields where they encounter a variety of food options - including prey and weed seeds. The feeding behaviors of carabids are often influenced by the physical and chemical traits of prey and seed species, as such traits determine prey or seed species that are suitable for consumption. However, some carabid species may prey upon other carabids, complicating their role as beneficial insects due to consumptive (direct) and non-consumptive (indirect) intra-guild predation effects. The non-consumptive effects of intra-guild predation are expected to influence prey and seed foraging behaviors of carabids because those behaviors are likely to be adapted as a function of duration and intensity of predation risk. In this study, we wanted to explore the non-consumptive effects of the carabid intra-guild predator Pterosticus melanarius on mobility and feeding behavior of two carabid omnivores: Harpalus amputatus and Amara spp. Choice and no-choice feeding arenas coupled with a video system were used to study the responses of carabid beetles to the odor cues of P. melanarius. Odor cues left by P. melanarius caused H. amputatus to reduce its activity when canola seeds (Brassica napus) were offered in the feeding arenas. In contrast, P. melanarius cues did not cause H. amputatus to alter its mobility when freeze-killed fruit flies were offered in the feeding arenas, although this species did increase consumption of fruit flies under these cues. Amara spp. offered canola seeds increased their mobility and relative seed preferences when exposed to the odor cues of P. melanarius. Overall, our work shows carabid species do alter aspects of their foraging behavior under intra-guild predation risks, but this is unlikely to reduce their contributions to seed or prey biocontrol.
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) | 0.001 | 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".