Is the propensity to alarm-call heritable and related across multiple contexts?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alarm calling is an important antipredator behaviour by which individuals alert conspecifics and heterospecifics of possible danger and/or ward off potential predators. The propensity to utter calls may reflect the amount of risk an individual experiences and a variety of other internal and environmental factors that may be context and species specific. However, whether the propensity to utter alarm calls is heritable has not been studied. Using a quantitative genetic animal model, we estimated the heritability of alarm calling in yellow-bellied marmots, Marmota flaviventer . We found significant heritability in the propensity to utter naturally elicited alarm calls (0.06) and trap-elicited alarm calls when marmots were trapped (0.21). There was a small but significant genetic correlation between these traits (0.338). Together, these results show that the propensity to utter alarm calls is individually variable and context dependent and can evolve in response to natural selection. • We estimated heritability of natural vs trap-elicited alarm-calling propensity. • Alarm calling propensity was heritable in both contexts. • Natural calling rates had lower heritability than trap-elicited calling rates. • There was a small, but significant, genetic correlation between calling in both contexts. • The propensity to utter alarm calls can evolve in response to natural selection.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".