Relationship between habitat distribution, growth rate, and plasticity in congeneric larval dragonflies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between habitat distribution, growth rate, and plasticity was examined in the larvae of three species of dragonfly in the genus Libellula L., 1758. Growth rates were compared under three conditions: in the absence of predation risk, in the presence of sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque, 1819; Pisciformes: Centrachidae), and in the presence of invertebrate predators. I assessed how the habitat distributions of the three species of dragonfly, specifically how commonly they occur with fish, were related to growth rates and to the level of growth plasticity under different levels of perceived predation risk. There was a negative relationship between growth rate and the frequency with which species coexist with sunfish. Growth-rate plasticity was limited and does not appear to be important in determining the ability of species to coexist with alternative top predator types. Only one species exhibited growth-rate plasticity, decreasing growth in response to the predator with which it most commonly coexists but not to the species which poses the greatest predation risk. A comparison of growth rates and activity levels in the presence and absence of these predators suggests that growth and activity level parallel each other in these species.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".