Flower and fruit herbivory in a population of<i>Centaurea scabiosa</i>(Asteraceae): Importance of population size and isolation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effects of size and isolation of Centaurea scabiosa (Asteraceae) populations on herbivory level in flower heads were examined in eight populations of 2,280-44,441 flower heads, each population being separated by 1 to 8 km from the others. Three common flower head herbivores were observed. Two of these (Cerajocera ceratocera [Diptera: Tephritidae] and Isocolus cf. rogenhoferi [Hymenoptera: Cynipidae]) were specialists, and the third (Eucosma cana [Lepidoptera: Tortricidae]) was a generalist on the subfamily Cynaroiideae to which C. scabiosa belongs. All three species increased their herbivory level with size of host plant population. We compared the explanatory power of three measures of population isolation: 1) the traditional measure of distance to nearest-neighbour population, 2) cumulative proximity of all surrounding populations, and 3) a measure termed biological proximity, combining the effects of distance to other populations and their size. Both 2) and 3) explained surprisingly little of the observed herbivory. Thus population size and distance to nearest-neighbour population were the two best predictors of level of herbivory.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".