The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cannibal crickets on a forced march for protein and salt
Abstract
Swarming and mass migration are spectacular and sometimes devastating features of the biology of various animal species. These phenomena are typically associated with actual or anticipated depletion of food resources after an increase in population density, but the mechanisms driving such collective movements are poorly understood. Here we reveal that insects in large, coordinated migratory bands consisting of millions of Mormon crickets in western North America were deprived of two essential nutritional resources: protein and salt. The insects themselves provided a major source of these nutrients, and cannibalism was rife. We show that protein and salt satiation reduced cannibalism and that protein satiation inhibited walking. Additionally, experimentally reducing the motility or mobility of crickets substantially increased their risk of being cannibalized by other band members. As a result, the availability of protein and salt in the habitat will influence the extent to which bands march, both through the direct effect of nutrient state on locomotion and indirectly through the threat of cannibalism by resource-deprived crickets approaching from the rear. The crickets are, in effect, on a forced march. Migratory band formation and subsequent mass movement, therefore, are manifestations of specific tradeoffs between the costs and benefits of group living. Bands afford antipredator benefits to individual group members. Group movement then mitigates the resulting costs of intraspecific competition, namely local depletion of nutritional resources and the associated increased risk of cannibalism.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Consensus decision making in animals
Conradt, L., & Roper, T. J. (2005) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2005.05.008 · Cited by 872
Cited by
Vicsek, T., & Zafeiris, A. (2012) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2012.03.004 · Cited by 2,923
Understanding insect life histories and senescence through a resource allocation lens
Boggs, C. L. (2009) · Functional Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2435.2009.01527.x · Cited by 448
Collective Motion due to Individual Escape and Pursuit Response
Romanczuk, P., Couzin, I. D., & Schimansky-Geier, L. (2009) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.102.010602 · Cited by 277
Self-citationThe Multidimensional Nutritional Niche
Machovsky-Capuska, G. E., Senior, A. M., Simpson, S. J., & Raubenheimer, D. (2016) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2016.02.009 · Cited by 219
Self-citationHigh-order social interactions in groups of mice
Shemesh, Y., Sztainberg, Y., Forkosh, O., Shlapobersky, T., Chen, A., & Schneidman, E. (2013) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.00759 · Cited by 213
Metadata
- Authors
- Simpson, S. J., Sword, G. A., Lorch, P. D., & Couzin, I. D.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2006-03-03
- Volume
- 103
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 4152-4156
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2106716144
- Cited by
- 328
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 15.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cannibal crickets on a forced march for protein and salt. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.0508915103
- The paper
- Simpson, S. J., Sword, G. A., Lorch, P. D., & Couzin, I. D. (2006). Cannibal crickets on a forced march for protein and salt. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0508915103
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.