On the use of kinship and familiarity associated social information in mediating Drosophila melanogaster oviposition decisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decisions where an individual lays their eggs are important, as the choice may affect their offspring's survival and lifetime reproductive success. Information produced by conspecifics can potentially be useful in making decisions as this "social information" may provide an energetically cheaper means of assessing oviposition site suitability rather than acquiring it personally. However, as not all public information may be equally beneficial, cues produced by kin may be especially valuable as they might signal suitable microenvironments, and are associated with other fitness advantages resulting from improved foraging success and/or a decreased risk of competition/cannibalism compared to sites where unrelated conspecifics are located. Using the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, we explored whether public information use is associated with kin-based egg-laying decisions. Kinship is potentially recognized in several ways, including environmentally-associated proxy cues, so we explored whether there were biases in how focal females interacted with cues from conspecifics that differed in both genetic relatedness, and environmental "familiarity." In a series of inter-connected assays, we examined the behaviour of focal females that interacted with a choice of potential egg-laying substrates that differed in the manner of their prior conspecific exposure, and counted the offspring that eclosed from these different substrates. Sites that had exhibited cues produced by conspecific demonstrators were visited more, and yielded more focal offspring compared to unexposed substrates. Furthermore, patterns of bias in offspring production were consistent with ovipositing females exhibiting sensitivity to the kinship status of the prior substrate's occupants. The basis of the kinship categorization by ovipositing females appears to be based on phenotypes that reflect true genetic relatedness, but the nature of the social information can be affected by other factors. These results further highlight the potential usefulness of D. melanogaster as a model to understand the evolution of social behaviour in the expression of decision-making.
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".