Life history of the northern mayfly <i>Baetis bundyae</i> in Rankin Inlet, Nunavut, Canada, with updates to the list of mayflies of Nunavut
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) were collected from 35 sites (streams and tundra ponds) across southern Nunavut in 2002–2005. Nine mayfly species were previously reported for Nunavut: Acentrella feropagus Alba-Tercedor and McCafferty, Acerpenna pygmaea (Hagen), Baetis bundyae Lehmkuhl, B. flavistriga McDunnough, B. foemina McDunnough, Diphetor hageni (Eaton) (Baetidae), Ephemerella aurivillii (Bengtsson) (Ephemerellidae), Leptophlebia nebulosa (Walker) (Leptophlebiidae), and Metretopus borealis (Eaton) (Metrotopidae). We add 7 species to this list, bringing the total to 16: Ameletus inopinatus Eaton (Ameletidae), Acentrella lapponica Bengtsson, Baetis hudsonicus Ide, B. tricaudatus Dodds, Heptagenia solitaria McDunnough (Heptageniidae), Rhithrogena jejuna Eaton (Heptageniidae), and Parameletus chelifer Bengtsson (Siphlonuridae). Based on numbers collected, the dominant mayfly family was Baetidae. Baetis bundyae was the most common mayfly collected, particularly in coastal areas, where larvae were found in permanent and temporary streams and in small or shallow tundra ponds. Larvae hatched 2–3 weeks after ice-out and developed rapidly in 2.5–4 weeks, emerging as adults by early August. All populations containing larvae that were large enough to sex showed female-biased sex ratios, suggesting parthenogenesis. A combination of freeze-tolerant eggs, good dispersal ability, and probable parthenogenesis is probably responsible for the success of Baetidae across the Arctic.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".