Host‐foraging stable flies, <i>Stomoxys calcitrans</i>, are preferentially attracted to objects with both visual and thermal host‐like characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Many haematophagous insects use the heat emitted by warm‐blooded animals as a cue for locating suitable hosts. Blood‐feeding stable flies, Stomoxys calcitrans (L.) (Diptera: Muscidae), are known to respond to visual and olfactory host cues. However, the effects of thermal host cues on the foraging behaviour of these flies remain largely unknown. Here we tested the hypothesis that host‐foraging stable flies preferentially land on objects with host‐like temperature, and on objects with both visual and thermal host‐like cues. In laboratory bioassays, stable flies were offered a choice between paired temperature‐controlled copper discs. Flies preferentially landed on the disc with a host‐like temperature (40 °C), discriminating against discs that were cooler (26 or 35 °C) or warmer (50 or 60 °C) than vertebrate hosts. Flies that were well fed and thus not in foraging mode, or host‐foraging flies that were offered infrared radiation but not the conductive and convective heat of different temperature discs, failed to discriminate between the stimuli. In greenhouse experiments, when flies were offered a choice between paired barrels as surrogate hosts, flies preferentially landed on barrels that were both thermally and visually appealing (38–39 °C, black), discriminating against barrels that were cold (10 °C), white, or both cold and white. Thermal cues augmented the overall landing responses of flies but their initial (mid‐range) attraction to barrels was mediated by visual cues. Overall, the data suggest that thermal host cues affect the host‐foraging behaviour of stable flies primarily at close range, prompting landing on a host.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".