Does nutrition-related stress carry over to spruce budworm,<i>Choristoneura fumiferana</i>(Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) progeny?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three different patterns of feeding of sixth-instar spruce budworm, Choristoneura fumiferana Clemens were simulated in the laboratory. Larvae were fed artificial diets whose nitrogen and total soluble sugar contents varied according to levels similar to those found in three types of balsam fir, Abies balsamea (L.) Miller foliage (current-year foliage from middle and lower crown sections and one-year-old foliage). The biological performance of offspring was studied according to the nutrition of their parents. Although food quality had no impact on pupal weight of female parents and individual mean egg weight, progeny fitness was influenced by parental nutrition. Old foliage simulated diet, poor in nitrogen, clearly affected the early larval development of progeny, especially the percent of egg hatch and first-instar survival. Lower crown current-year foliage simulated diet, with low total soluble sugar content, reduced the first-instar survival of the progeny. However, the selective pressure exerted by low food qualities on the parental generation and on the early stages of their progenies resulted in C. fumiferana populations having higher tolerance to starvation and higher survival after the diapause period. These results highlighted the potentially direct and indirect effects of C. fumiferana parental nutrition on the next generation. The patterns of feeding of parental generations would appear to affect the quality and size of subsequent populations through several selections on the different life-history stages of both generations.
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".