The role of plant trichomes and caterpillar group size on growth and defence of the pipevine swallowtail <i> Battus philenor</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The California population of the pipevine swallowtail Battus philenor is a specialist on the Dutchman’s pipe Aristolochia californica, an endemic vine that is densely covered with trichomes. Populations of B. philenor outside California use other Aristolochia species that are largely glabrous. The average clutch size of the pipevine swallowtail is larger in California compared with populations elsewhere and larvae feed gregariously until late in the third instar. In the field, caterpillars consumed more leaf material and showed preference for portions of leaves with trichomes removed. However, large groups of caterpillars were consistently observed feeding on the apical portion of the plant, where trichome density was highest. Smaller groups of caterpillars were observed feeding more often on mature leaves on the lower portions of the plant, where trichome density was lower. Laboratory experiments showed that the walking speed of a commonly observed predator, larvae of the green lacewing Chrysopa carnea, was reduced as trichome density increased. Furthermore, lacewing search efficiency and capture rate of a model prey item were compromised by high trichome density. In an additional field experiment, no difference was found in the percentage mortality of groups of four and 12 caterpillars. However, growth rate of the larger group was accelerated by 25% compared with smaller groups. In an experiment using a ladybird beetle larva Hippodamia convergens as the predator, no difference was observed in absolute mortality of caterpillars, suggesting that group size does not function directly as a defence against predators. First instar caterpillars are most vulnerable to predators, thus feeding in larger groups may benefit caterpillars by accelerating growth. Feeding in large groups may also be an effective strategy for B. philenor to overcome plant trichomes and feed on portions of the plant conducive to faster development. However, feeding on areas with dense trichomes does not appear to provide larvae with a refuge from predators.
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".