Variation in flight morphology in a female polymorphic damselfly: intraspecific, intrasexual, and seasonal differences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In aerial animals, flight morphology needs to be designed to allow daily behavioural activities. Within species differences in behaviour can therefore be expected to relate to differences in flight morphology, not only between males and females but also between same-sex members when they use different behavioural strategies. In female polymorphic damselflies, one female morph is considered a male mimic that resembles the male’s body colour and behaviour (andromorph), whereas the other is dissimilar (gynomorph). Here, we questioned whether males, andromorphs, and gynomorphs of the damselfly Enallagma cyathigerum (Charpentier, 1840) differ in flight morphology, with andromorphs being more similar to males than gynomorphs. In addition, we evaluated whether differences in flight morphology are consistent or whether some morphs are more plastic in response to seasonal environmental fluctuations. Most morphometrics showed similar seasonal plasticity for males and both female morphs, which could only partly be explained from allometry. Consistent with high manoeuvrability in flight, males had broader wings and lower wing loading than females. Variation between female morphs was less pronounced, with no consistent differences in length, aspect ratio, total surface, and wing loading. However, we detected morph-specific differences in shape and width, with andromorphs having broader wings than gynomorphs similarly to males.
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".