Effects of macro- and micro-nutrients on momentary and season-long feeding responses by select species of ants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few studies have investigated the relative contribution of specific nutrients to momentary and season-long foraging responses by ants. Using western carpenter ants, Camponotus modoc, and European fire ants, Myrmica rubra, as model species, we: (1) tested preferential consumption of various macro- and micro-nutrients; (2) compared consumption of preferred macro-nutrients; (3) investigated seasonal shifts (late May to mid-September) in nutrient preferences; and (4) tested whether nutrient preferences of C. modoc and M. rubra pertain to black garden ants, Lasius niger, and thatching ants, Formica aserva. In laboratory and field experiments, we measured nutrient consumption by weighing Eppendorf tubes containing aqueous nutrient solutions before and after feeding by ants. Laboratory colonies of C. modoc favored nitrogenous urea and essential amino acids (EAAs), whereas M. rubra colonies favored sucrose. Field colonies of C. modoc and M. rubra preferentially consumed EAAs and sucrose, respectively, with no sustained shift in preferred macro-nutrient over the course of the foraging season. The presence of a less preferred macro-nutrient in a nutrient blend did not diminish the blend's 'appeal' to foraging ants. Sucrose and EAAs singly and in combination were equally consumed by L. niger, whereas F. aserva preferred EAAs. Baits containing both sucrose and EAAs were consistently consumed by the ants studied in this project and should be considered for pest ant control.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".