A comparison of the host preference of monarch butterflies (<i>Danaus plexippus</i>) for milkweed (<i>Asclepias syriaca</i>) over dog‐strangler vine (<i>Vincetoxicum rossicum</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Observations in the field indicate that monarch butterflies will oviposit on dog‐strangler vine, an invasive introduced species in the same family as milkweed (Asclepias spp.), the principal larval host of monarchs. The potential impact of this behaviour depends on the strength of the preference of monarch adults to oviposit on these two hosts and the relative ability of larvae to survive on each. We determined the preference for milkweed vs. dog‐strangler vine of ovipositing adults and first instar larvae in choice and no‐choice tests. We also compared the ability of larvae to consume, develop, and survive on either host. In the presence of both hosts, adults exhibited a strong preference to oviposit on milkweed over dog‐strangler vine (mean 80.7 eggs compared to 0.4 eggs over 48 h, respectively). In the absence of milkweed, adults ceased oviposition (mean 0.9 eggs in 48 h), but resumed oviposition when the dog‐strangler vine was replaced with milkweed (mean 99.1 eggs in 48 h). Given a choice between hosts over 24 h, 92% of larvae moved to milkweed leaves and consumed 3.94 cm2 of milkweed leaves compared to 2% of larvae that moved to dog‐strangler vine and consumed negligible amounts of leaf material (0.01 cm2). Without a choice, larvae on dog‐strangler vine never consumed more than mean 0.02 cm2 larva−1 in a 24‐h period, did not develop beyond the first instar, and died within 96 h. We obtained no data in support of an effect of the presence of dog‐strangler vine on monarch butterfly populations.
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".