MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137205476 · doi:10.1603/en12348

Cold Tolerance of the Eastern Subterranean Termite,<i>Reticulitermes flavipes</i>(Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae), in Ontario

2013· article· en· W2137205476 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Matthew Clarke, Graham Thompson, Brent J. Sinclair

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Entomology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphWestern University
FundersNature Conservancy of CanadaParks CanadaNature Conservancy
KeywordsRhinotermitidaeReticulitermesBiologyCritical thermal maximumAcclimatizationEcologyZoologyAnimal scienceBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We characterized the cold tolerance of natural populations of the Eastern subterranean termite (Reticulitermes flavipes (Kollar) [Isoptera, Rhinotermitidae]) in southwestern Ontario, Canada. We measured cold tolerance in workers from six colonies of termites established from Pelee Island in Lake Erie, and Point Pelee National Park. The mean critical thermal minimum, at which termites entered chill coma, ranged from 8.1 to 5.7°C. Mean supercooling points (SCP, the temperature at which individuals freeze) ranged from -4 to -4.6°C, and did not differ significantly between colonies, nor was SCP dependent on body size. Individuals survived brief exposure to low temperatures, as long as they did not freeze, but internal ice formation was always lethal, suggesting a freeze avoiding strategy. The LT50 (temperature at which 50% of individuals were killed by a 1 h exposure) was -5.1°C, but all individuals could survive -2°C for at least 72 h. Low temperature acclimation (12°C, 7 d) or hardening (4°C, 2 h) had no impact on the SCP, but acclimation did slightly increase the critical thermal minimum, making the termites less cold tolerant. We conclude that R. flavipes is not particularly cold tolerant, and likely relies on burrowing deep into the soil to avoid exposure to temperature to extremes.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.702

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.182 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental EntomologySame topicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207