Two sides of a coin: host‐plant synchrony fitness trade‐offs in the population dynamics of the western spruce budworm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conifer-feeding budworms emerge from overwintering sites as small larvae in early spring, several days before budburst, and mine old needles. These early-emerging larvae suffer considerable mortality during this foraging period as they disperse in search of available, current-year buds. Once buds flush, surviving budworms construct feeding shelters and must complete maturation before fresh host foliage senesces and lignifies later in the summer. Late-developing larvae suffer greater mortality and survivors have lower fecundity when feeding on older foliage. Thus, there is a seasonal trade-off in fitness associated with host synchrony: early-emerging budworms have a greater risk of mortality during spring dispersal but gain better access to the most nutritious foliage, while, on the other hand, late-emerging larvae incur a lower risk during the initial foraging period but must contend with rapidly diminishing resource quality at the end of the feeding period. We investigate the balance that results from these early-season and late-season synchrony fitness trade-offs using the concept of the phenological window. Parameters associated with the variation in the phenological window are used to estimate generational fitness as a function of host-plant synchrony. Because defoliation modifies these relationships, it is also included in the analysis. We show that fitness trade-offs characterizing the phenological window result in a robust synchrony relationship between budworm and host plant over a wide geographic range in southern British Columbia, Canada.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".