The ground offers acoustic efficiency gains for crickets and other calling animals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Male crickets attract females by producing calls with their forewings. Louder calls travel further and are more effective at attracting mates. However, crickets are much smaller than the wavelength of their call, and this limits their power output. A small group called tree crickets make acoustic tools called baffles which reduce acoustic short-circuiting, a source of dipole inefficiency. Here, we ask why baffling is uncommon among crickets. We hypothesize that baffling may be rare because like other tools they offer insufficient advantage for most species. To test this, we modelled the calling efficiencies of crickets within the full space of possible natural wing sizes and call frequencies, in multiple acoustic environments. We then generated efficiency landscapes, within which we plotted 112 cricket species across 7 phylogenetic clades. We found that all sampled crickets, in all conditions, could gain efficiency from tool use. Surprisingly, we also found that calling from the ground significantly increased efficiency, with or without a baffle, by as much as an order of magnitude. We found that the ground provides some reduction of acoustic short-circuiting but also halves the air volume within which sound is radiated. It simultaneously reflects sound upwards, allowing recapture of a significant amount of acoustic energy through constructive interference. Thus, using the ground as a reflective baffle is an effective strategy for increasing calling efficiency. Indeed, theory suggests that this increase in efficiency is accessible not just to crickets but to all acoustically communicating animals whether they are dipole or monopole sound sources.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".