Physiological tolerances of three sympatric riparian wolf spiders (Araneae: Lycosidae) correspond with microhabitat distributions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coexisting species from the same ecological guild often exhibit different adaptations to discontinuous, abiotic environmental factors. In the laboratory, we compared tolerance to thermal and desiccation stress among three sympatric wolf spiders (Pirata sedentarius Montgomery, 1904, Pardosa lapidicina Emerton, 1885, and Pardosa fuscula Thorell, 1875). In the field, we examined spatial structure across a microhabitat (moisture) gradient in a streamside cobble habitat where these three species are abundant. Female P. sedentarius succumbed more quickly to desiccation stress than females of either Pardosa species. In the absence of thermal stress, desiccation tolerance was high for both Pardosa species. However, P. fuscula appears to be more resistant to combined thermal and desiccation stress than P. lapidicina. These findings correspond with the results of the field survey; the distribution of P. sedentarius was the most restricted (by proximity to the shoreline) among the three species. Contingency analyses also revealed greater relative abundance of P. fuscula than P. lapidicina farther away from the creek. Further examination of spatial structure suggests that neither of these two species was restricted by proximity to the shoreline within the sampling grid.
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".