MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169824346 · doi:10.1890/03-4056

POPULATION CYCLES IN THE PINE LOOPER MOTH: DYNAMICAL TESTS OF MECHANISTIC HYPOTHESES

2005· article· en· W2169824346 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Monographs · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersAndrew W. Mellon Foundation
KeywordsPopulation cycleBiologyEcologyPopulationParasitoidTrophic levelParasitismDensity dependenceBiological pest controlPredationHost (biology)Demography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The forest insect pest Bupalus piniarius (pine looper moth) is a classic example of a natural population cycle. As is typical for populations that exhibit regular oscillations in density, there are several biological mechanisms that are hypothesized to be responsible for the cycles; but despite several decades of detailed study there has been no definite conclusion as to which mechanism is most important. We evaluated three hypotheses for which there was direct experimental evidence: (1) food quality (nutritional value of pine needles affected by defoliation); (2) parasitoids (trophic interactions with specialist parasitoids); and (3) maternal effects (maternal body size affects the performance of offspring). We reviewed the empirical evidence for each of these hypotheses and expressed each hypothesis in the form of a mechanistic dynamic model. We used a nonlinear forecasting approach to fit each model to three long‐term population time series in Britain that exhibit some degree of regular cycling, and we used parametric bootstrap to evaluate the significance of differences between models in their goodness of fit to the data. The results differed among the three forests: at Culbin, the parasitoid and maternal effects models fit equally well; at Roseisle, the food quality and maternal effects models fit equally well; and at Tentsmuir, the parasitoid model fit best. However, the best‐fit parasitism models required that the parasitism rate vary between nearly 0 and nearly 1 during a cycle, greatly exceeding the range of parasitism rates that have been observed in the field. In contrast, the required variation in the observable maternal quality variable (pupal mass) was within the range of empirical observations. Under mild constraints on the parasitism rate (though allowing a much wider range than has been measured in B. piniarius at any location), the fit of the parasitism model fell off dramatically. The maternal effects model then had uniformly strong support, outperforming the constrained parasitism model at all three sites and the food quality model at two; it performed slightly better than the food quality model at the remaining site. This represents the first system in which the maternal effects hypothesis for population cycles has been supported by both strong biological and dynamical evidence.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it