Locomotor Response of<i>Folsomia candida</i>(Collembola: Isotomidae) to Cooling Temperatures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Groups of Folsomia candida (Willem) were chilled to 0°C and warmed back to room temperature to measure their locomotor response to cooling and determine the chill coma temperature of the species. Results showed that the frequency of walking springtails, in groups being chilled down to 0°C, was initially similar to that of control groups held at room temperature before consistently declining to chill coma thresholds well above the freezing point. Body size had a significant effect on response to chilling but not to recovery. Jumping, in groups being chilled, was absent from tests conducted in humid arenas but an important part of the locomotor response in dry arenas. Chill coma thresholds were higher in dry than in humid arenas. In a 4-33°C thermal gradient, warm-acclimated and cold-acclimated springtails distributed themselves over the whole gradient, but with a preference for sections at 8-11 and 5-8°C, respectively. Together, test results did not support the hypothesis that, for F. candida, locomotion is the main strategy to avoid cold temperatures. Results suggest that F. candida remain in the upper soil layers as the season becomes colder and increase their cold tolerance to continue foraging in the food-rich upper soil layers. Survival of the species to freezing temperatures may depend more on development of cold tolerance and cold hardiness (supercooling) than on relocation to warmer deeper soil layers.
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) | 0.002 | 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".