Lepidopteran species differ in susceptibility to winter warming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predicting assemblage-level impacts of climate change requires knowledge of among-species variation in susceptibility to warming.Increased winter temperatures intuitively reduce cold stress for overwintering ectotherms, but can decrease fitness by increasing consumption of energy reserves.We kept overwintering stages of the butterflies Papilio glaucus, P. troilus (Papilionidae), and Erynnis propertius (Hesperiidae) under current temperatures and conditions simulating a 4°C increase in mean temperature, and compared mass, water, energy reserves (lipid, protein and carbohydrate content), and, in E. propertius and P. troilus, post-winter development time, adult size, and mortality.All 3 species lost mass over winter, more so during warm winters.Erynnis propertius lost more mass than either Papilio.Warm winters increased energy reserve depletion in E. propertius, but had no effect on energy reserves of either Papilio.Warming reduced development time, but did not affect mortality or adult size of P. troilus.Mortality in E. propertius was uniformly high preventing assessment of treatment effects on survival, development, or adult size.The observed overwinter mass loss by E. propertius and P. troilus was predominantly due to water loss; thus we conclude that mass loss is not an appropriate measurement of energy drain in insects, rather body composition should be measured directly.Thus, P. glaucus and P. troilus have low vulnerability to winter warming, while E. propertius shows some vulnerability.Measuring the impact of winter warming on many species will enable the identification of species traits that predict vulnerability, and facilitate identification of clades particularly susceptible to winter warming.
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".