Skip to content
#software testing Dataset Open access

Behavioral dataset for GLMM models testing premating isolation and calculating strength of reproductive isolation in the biguttulus complex

Oct 2026 · Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Orthoptera Research and Taxonomy

Abstract

The dataset comes from no-choice mating experiments on three closely related grasshopper species of the *Chorthippus biguttulus *complex: C. biguttulus (Big), C. brunneus **(Bru) and C. mollis (Mol). The aim was to measure how male and female courtship behaviors differ between conspecific and heterospecific pairings, and how much each behavior contributes to behavioral reproductive isolation. Adults were either reared under common-garden conditions from field-collected parents or collected directly from the field and acclimated to the lab. Individuals of the same species, sex and origin (lab-reared or wild-caught) were housed in groups of three. Each female was paired individually with a male of each of the three species on three consecutive days. The male species rotated daily, so each female met one conspecific and two heterospecific males. Each trial ran for a maximum of 90 minutes or until mating occurred, with the male species’ song played in the background to stimulate duetting. For each trial, six behaviors were recorded in courtship order: male call singing, male courtship singing, female response (stridulation), male mounting attempt, female rejection, and mating (yes/no). Files and variables File: DataClean.csv is semicolon-delimited, with one row per no-choice trial (one female paired with one male). Counts are unitless event counts per trial. Missing values are coded as NA. Variables Trial_ID: Unique row/trial identifier Trial: Experimental block (a set of parallel female/male group pairings run over three consecutive days). Day: Day on which the trial was run, counted from the start of the experimental series. Day.planned: Day originally scheduled for the trial; may differ from Day if trials were rescheduled. Start: Trial start time, 24-hour clock in hhmm format (e.g., 1500 = 15:00). End: Trial end time, same format as Start. Female: Species of the female: Big (C. biguttulus), Bru (C. brunneus), Mol (C. mollis). Male: Species of the male, same codes. Interaction: Homo (conspecific pair) or Hetero (heterospecific pair). Combination: Female species followed by male species (e.g., BigMol = Big female with Mol male). Type.F: Origin of the female: lab (common-garden reared) or wild (field-collected). Type.M: Origin of the male, same codes. Replicate: Replicate/row number of the trial. Cage.females: ID of the cage (group of three females) the female came from. Used as the grouping variable in the models. Cage.males: ID of the cage (group of three males) the male came from. Box: Number (1-3) of the enclosure in which the pair was tested; three trials ran in parallel. Mating: Whether copulation occurred (1 = yes, 0 = no). Singing: Number of male call songs, sung at a distance from the female (male call singing). Active.Singing: Number of male courtship songs, sung near the female (male courtship singing). Total.Singing: Total number of male songs (Singing + Active.Singing); the denominator for female response. Response: Number of times the female stridulated in response to male song (female response). Hfailed: Number of mounting attempts that failed (male fell off or moved away). Hmount: Number of mounting attempts that were not rejected or failed (i.e., led to copulation). Hrejection: Number of mounting attempts rejected by the female (female kicked the male off), given the number of times a male tried to mount the female. Harassment: Total number of male mounting attempts (male mounting attempt); the denominator for female rejection. Rejection: Number of mounting attempts rejected by the female (female kicked the male off). Total.Rejection: Sum of Hrejection and Rejection Code/software R version 4.4.1, R Core Team, 2024

View source

Similar papers

#computer vision Review Sep 2017

Agile Software Development Methods: Review and Analysis

This publication proposes a definition and a classification of agile software development approaches and analyses ten software development methods that can be characterized as being "agile" against the defined criterion.

P. Abrahamsson, O. Salo, Jussi Ronkainen et al. · 727 citations · ⚡54
#computer vision Jun 2008

The impact of agile practices on communication in software development

The study shows that agile practices improve both informal and formal communication, but indicates that, in larger development situations involving multiple external stakeholders, a mismatch of adequate communication mechanisms can sometimes even hinder the communication.

M. Pikkarainen, Jukka Haikara, O. Salo et al. · 401 citations · ⚡48
#machine learning Review Open access Oct 2014

Software development in startup companies: A systematic mapping study

The results indicate that software engineering work practices are chosen opportunistically, adapted and configured to provide value under the constrains imposed by the startup context.

Nicolò Paternoster, Carmine Giardino, M. Unterkalmsteiner et al. · 394 citations · ⚡54
#computer vision Review Mar 2008

Agile methods in European embedded software development organisations: a survey on the actual use and usefulness of Extreme Programming and Scrum

The results show that the embedded industry has been able to apply agile methods in its development processes and that the appreciation of the agile methods and their individual practices appears to increase once adopted and applied in practice.

O. Salo, P. Abrahamsson · 238 citations · ⚡9
#computer vision Open access Jul 2017

What happens when software developers are (un)happy

Consequences of happiness and unhappiness that are beneficial and detrimental for developers' mental well-being, the software development process, and the produced artifacts are found.

D. Graziotin, Fabian Fagerholm, Xiaofeng Wang et al. · 236 citations · ⚡13
#computer vision Open access Oct 2004

Mobile-D: an agile approach for mobile application development

The Mobile-D approach is briefly outlined here and the experiences gained from four case studies are discussed, which helped develop an agile development approach for mobile application development.

P. Abrahamsson, Antti Hanhineva, H. Hulkko et al. · 225 citations · ⚡18

Related blog posts

Microsoft Research Blog Oct 12, 2026

Simulating student learning for better AI tutoring

StudentSim is a research system for evaluating and improving AI tutoring tools before they are tested with learners. It models how individuals may engage with tutors, giving feedback to improve tutor performance across subjects like chess, writing, and mathematics. The post Simulating student learning for better AI tutoring appeared first on Microsoft Research.

MIT News · Artificial Intelligence Oct 2, 2026

Documenting the tech worker movement

Writing as a participant and researcher, PhD student JS Tan SM ’22 has co-authored a new book about the rise of tech worker protests and the employer backlash that followed.

MIT News · Artificial Intelligence Oct 2, 2026

Documenting the tech worker movement

Writing as a participant and researcher, PhD student JS Tan SM ’22 has co-authored a new book about the rise of tech worker protests and the employer backlash that followed.

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.