Comparison of Common Milkweed and Honeyvine Milkweed (Asclepiadaceae) as Host Plants for Monarch Larvae (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two species of milkweed (Asclepiadaceae) are especially abundant in portions of eastern North America. Common milkweed, Asclepias syriaca L., is most abundant in the northern United States and southeastern Canada, while honeyvine milkweed, Cynanchum laeve (Michaux), is most abundant at central latitudes in the eastern half of the United States. The former is frequently cited as an important host plant for larvae of the monarch butterfly, Danaus plexippus L. (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae), while the latter is rarely mentioned in this regard. We compared the performance of monarch larvae on these two plant species. Larvae developed significantly faster on honeyvine milkweed than on common milkweed. Average pupal fresh weights appeared to be slightly greater for individuals reared on common milkweed than those reared on honeyvine milkweed, but the difference was not statistically significant. Similarly, larval survival was about 14% higher on common milkweed, but the difference was not significant. Our results indicate that both common milkweed and honeyvine milkweed are suitable hosts for monarch larvae. Given the abundance of honeyvine milkweed in the east-central United States, this species may be a more important host plant for the monarch than has been generally recognized.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".