Temporal variations in abiotic conditions exert little influence on diurnal activity of late-instar spruce budworm larvae on balsam fir
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Spruce budworm,Choristoneurafumiferana(Clemens) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), larvae can cause extensive defoliation in balsam fir (Abies balsamea[Linnaeus] Miller) and exhibit high temporal and spatial variability in individual behaviour. We gathered field data to determine the influence of daily and hourly variation in abiotic conditions on daytime activity patterns of late-instar budworm larvae on balsam fir. In both years of our study, less than 10% of larvae were observed feeding during the daytime. Most larvae observed were either resting, spinning silk, or roaming, although the proportion of individuals engaged in each activity varied between years, with more larvae in the first year roaming (48%) and in the second year either resting (38%) or spinning silk (42%). Daily and hourly variation in abiotic conditions had a limited influence on activity patterns. Our results indicate that in nature, mid- to late-instar budworm larvae maintain fairly consistent activity patterns across a wide range of abiotic conditions. We suggest that site-specific conditions such as variation in host-plant quality and/or budworm population density may be more important than weather in determining the relative frequencies of different larval activities in space and time.
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".