Cold winter microenvironments conserve energy and improve overwintering survival and potential fecundity of the goldenrod gall fly, <i>Eurosta solidaginis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied the influence of two overwintering microenvironments on survival and potential fecundity of goldenrod gall flies, Eurosta solidaginis (Fitch) (Diptera, Tephritidae). These freeze‐tolerant larvae overwinter above the snow on standing goldenrod stems (elevated) or below the snow on broken stems (ground‐level). When covered by snow, the ground‐level larvae were well insulated and thus protected from the lowest temperatures of the winter, but, because they were warmer, they consumed more energy than their elevated counterparts. The ground‐level group also experienced greater warming from the soil during sunny spring days, and their galls were less prone to drying than their elevated counterparts. By winter's end the ground‐level larvae exhibited significantly lower rates of emergence (83.5% vs 93.0%) and reduced potential fecundity (274±11 eggs/female vs 336±17 eggs/female). Models of seasonal energy use indicate that these differences were due to higher metabolic rates in the ground‐level microenvironment due to insulation by snow and warming from the soil, which reduced the energy available for morphological development and egg production in the spring. We conclude that colder winter microenvironments can have a strong positive effect on overwintering ectotherms, particularly those that rely on energy stores accumulated during the autumn to produce eggs in spring. The enhanced reproductive output of insects overwintering in colder microenvironments may be a selective force promoting the evolution of increased cold‐hardiness.
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".