Influence of Habitat Structure and Resource Availability on the Movements of<i>Rhagoletis indifferens</i>(Diptera: Tephritidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Habitat structure and resources availability may differentially influence movement between habitat patches. We examined fly movement decisions (stay or leave) at the scale of individual trees by measuring the response of marked Rhagoletis indifferens (Diptera: Tephritidae) to sweet cherry trees (Prunus avium) that were manipulated by changing the shape of the tree (structure treatment = normal or reduced) and the fruit load (fruit treatment = augmented, normal, or reduced). More than 600 observations were made at two field sites that differed in the average inter-tree distance: Senger site, 10.1 +/- 4.5 m; Tuemp site, 29.0 +/- 19.3 m. At the Senger site, flies were resighted most often in the normal structure-augmented fruit trees. At the Tuemp site, however, there were fewer transfers between trees, unusual tree preferences, and significant treatment interaction terms. Using a first principles diffusion model of attraction and by varying fly perceptual range to limit tree choice, we generated unusual tree preferences based on differential attraction to individual trees. Our results suggest that manipulating tree attractiveness may be a viable pest management strategy for closely spaced trees but not for dispersed trees. Further study into the relationship between the spatial arrangement of trees and the flies' ability to detect specific tree characteristics is warranted.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".