Influence of balsam fir (<i>Abies balsamea</i>) budburst phenology on hemlock looper (<i>Lambdina fiscellaria</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Many herbivorous insects emerge synchronously with budburst of their host plant, as the nutritional quality of foliage often decreases rapidly following budburst. We carried out manipulative field experiments to evaluate the influence of bud and shoot phenology on performance of the hemlock looper, Lambdina fiscellaria Guenée (Lepidoptera: Geometridae: Ourapterygini), on balsam fir, Abies balsamea (L.) Mill. (Pinaceae), in NF, Canada. Hemlock looper survival, pupal weight, and realized fecundity, which were then combined to estimate fitness, were all highest when newly emerged first instars were placed on foliage of current‐year shoots that had completed approximately 25–35% of their elongation, and lower when placed on younger or older foliage. Survival of a small portion of larvae placed on buds a week before budburst suggests that newly emerged first instars either entered unburst buds or survived for a week without food. In laboratory experiments, approximately half of larvae survived for 4 days without food or water at 10 °C and 65% r.h. The timing of egg hatch in the field appeared to be adaptive, but the short duration of egg hatch suggests that another factor in addition to host plant phenology exerts stabilizing selection pressure on the timing of egg hatch.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".