Trade-offs to flight capability in <i>Gryllus firmus</i>: the influence of whole-organism respiration rate on fitness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Wing dimorphism, where some macropterous long-winged (LW) individuals can fly whereas micropterous short-winged (SW) individuals cannot, is common in insects and believed to be maintained in part by trade-offs between flight capability and reproductive traits. In this paper we examine differences in whole-organism respiration rate between wing morphs of the sand cricket Gryllus firmus. We hypothesized that maintenance of the flight apparatus would result in elevated CO2 respired because of the high metabolic cost of these tissues, which, in turn, constrain resources available for egg production in females. As the trade-off involves calling behaviour in males, we predicted no equivalent constraint on organ development in this sex. We found female macropters (particularly older crickets) had significantly higher residual respiration rates than micropters. In males, we found only marginal differences between wing morphs. In both sexes there was a highly significant effect of flight muscles status on residual respiration rate, individuals with functional muscles having higher respiration rates. Both female and male macropters had significantly smaller gonads than micropters. Whole-organism residual respiration rate was negatively correlated with fecundity: macropterous females with high respiration rates had smaller gonads compared with macropterous females with lower respiration rates.
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 | 0.001 | 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".