Honeydew and nectar sugars differentially affect flight performance in female black flies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the wild, black flies (Diptera: Simuliidae) feed on both floral nectar and homopteran honeydew. We tested the hypothesis that sugar meal composition affects flight performance using tethered black flies that had been flown to exhaustion. Individuals were then fed distilled water (dH2O), 10% (m/v) artificial nectar (AN), or 20% (m/v) artificial honeydew (AH) sugars, and the distance, speed, and duration of the resultant flights were recorded using a computerized flight mill. Following a dH2O meal, flies were unable to regain flight. There were three different artificial honeydew diets (AHlow, AHmed, AHhigh), each differing in the proportion and composition of simple sugars (glucose, fructose, sucrose) and complex sugars (melezitose, stachyose). Flies flew the farthest and longest on AH meals that contained higher levels of complex sugars (AHmed, AHhigh) compared with flies fed on AN (simple sugars only) or AHlow. On this flight mill, the mean flight speed was 10.6 ± 3.5 m/min and was not affected by the type of sugar meal ingested.
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".