MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004406360 · doi:10.1079/ber2001119

Desiccation resistance in pre-diapause, diapause and post-diapause larvae of <i>Choristoneura fumiferana</i> (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)

2001· article· en· W2004406360 on OpenAlexaff
Éric Bauce, Er-Ning Han

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of Entomological Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiapauseBiologyDesiccationTortricidaeInstarSpruce budwormOverwinteringChoristoneura fumiferanaLepidoptera genitaliaLarvaBotanyHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Desiccation resistance was examined in pre-diapause, diapause and post-diapause larvae of the spruce budworm, Choristoneura fumiferana (Clemens), in terms of passive water evaporation under three desiccation conditions: freeze-drying, desiccant-drying at 2 degrees C and desiccant-drying at 18 degrees C. Diapausing second instar larvae and post-diapause non-feeding second instar larvae showed strongest desiccation resistance: a significant amount of water was retained after repeated drying under desiccating conditions, while pre-diapause first instar larvae and post-diapause feeding second instar larvae lost almost all their water content after one or two drying cycles. A hibernaculum covering had no effect on water evaporation. While dead larvae tended to lose significantly more water than their living counterparts, particularly among first instar larvae, such an impact was much weaker among diapausing second instar larvae. Desiccation resistance was lost when post-diapause second instar larvae were allowed access to water while the level of desiccation resistance was maintained or enhanced when the larvae did not have access to water. These results are discussed in the context of overwintering ecology of the species and possible mechanisms for the desiccation resistance are also discussed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.614
Threshold uncertainty score0.552

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of Entomological ResearchSame topicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207