Freedom to move: Arctic caterpillar (Lepidoptera) growth rate increases with access to new willows (Salicaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Movement between host plants during the growing season is a common behaviour among insect herbivores, although the mechanisms promoting these movements are poorly understood for many systems. Two possible reasons why insect herbivores relocate include compensating for host plant quantity and/or quality changes and the avoidance of natural enemies. The Arctic caterpillar (Gynaephora groenlandica(Wocke); Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) moves several metres each day, feeds on its patchily distributed host plant, Arctic willow (Salix arcticaPallas; Salicaceae), and has two main natural enemies, the parasitoidsExorista thulaWood (Diptera: Tachinidae) andHyposoter diechmanni(Nielsen) (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae). We physically moved caterpillars between Arctic willows and restricted other caterpillar individuals each to a single willow throughout the active period of Arctic caterpillars. We found that growth rate, herbivory rate, and the proportion of available leaf fascicles eaten were higher for experimentally moved caterpillars. Parasitoid abundances were low and did not differ between experimentally moved and stationary caterpillars. Taken together, our study addresses the bottom–up and top–down controls on insect herbivore movement during the short duration of the growing season in the Arctic. Our results suggest that caterpillars are likely moving to new willow shrubs to access high quality resources.
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".