Monarch Butterfly Oviposition on Swallow-Worts (<I>Vincetoxicum</I> spp.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As black swallow-wort, Vincetoxicum nigrum L. Moench, and pale swallow-wort, V. rossicum (Kleopow) Barbar., spread throughout the northeastern United States and southern Canada, there is concern about the impact of these invasive plants on populations of the native North American monarch butterfly Danaus plexippus L. Recent laboratory studies in New York and Ontario, Canada, have found little or no oviposition by monarch butterflies on the two Vincetoxicum species. In Rhode Island, we found 10.5-21.7% oviposition on Vincetoxicum species relative to common milkweed Asclepias syriaca L. in choice tests and 11.9-20.3% in no-choice tests in 2 yr of laboratory testing. These results were supported by field cage trials where monarchs given a choice between V. nigrum and A. syriaca laid 24.5% of their eggs on V. nigrum. In surveys of three pasture fields in Rhode Island where relative coverage of A. syriaca exceeded that of V. nigrum by a 0.77:0.23 ratio, 15.4% of monarch eggs were found on V. nigrum plants. In V. nigrum stands with very little A. syriaca (6.25 stems/ha), monarch egg density on V. nigrum was found to be over five times greater than in the three mixed pasture fields. In none of our laboratory or field evaluations was there any survival of monarch larvae on Vincetoxicum species. It seems that in Rhode Island, Vincetoxicum species serve as an oviposition sink for monarch butterflies. These findings suggest that East Coast butterflies may differ in host selection from those in central New York and southern Ontario, Canada.
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".