MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Flower and fruit herbivory in a population of<i>Centaurea scabiosa</i>(Asteraceae): Importance of population size and isolation

2003· article· en· W2543119072 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bodil Ehlers, Jens M. Olesen

Bibliographic record

VenueEcoscience · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBiological Control of Invasive Species
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHelsingin Yliopisto
KeywordsBiologyPopulationAsteraceaeBotanyEcologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractEffects 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.RésuméNous avons examiné les effets de la taille et de l'isolement de populations de Centaurea scabiosa (Asteraceae) sur l'intensité de broutement des capitules. Nous avons étudié huit populations de centaurées composées de 2280 à 44 441 capitules, chaque population étant distante de 1 à 8 km des autres. Trois espèces d'insectes herbivores qui se nourrissent de capitules ont aussi fait l'objet d'observations. Deux d'entre elles, Cerajocera ceratocera (Diptera: Tephritidae) et Isocolus cf. rogenhoferi (Hymenoptera: Cynipidae), sont des espèces spécialistes, alors que la troisième, Eucosma cana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), est une espèce généraliste qui se nourrit de capitules de plantes de la sous-famille des Cynaroiideae dont fait partie C. scabiosa. L'intensité de broutement des trois espèces a augmenté avec la taille de la population de la plante hôte. Nous avons comparé la puissance explicative de trois mesures d'isolement des populations : 1) la mesure habituelle de la distance séparant une population de la population voisine la plus proche, 2) la proximité cumulée de toutes les populations environnantes, et 3) une mesure appelée proximité biologique, qui combine les effets de la distance par rapport aux autres populations et la taille. Curieusement, les mesures d'isolement 2) et 3) n'expliquent qu'une faible proportion du broutement observé. La taille de la population et la distance par rapport à la population voisine la plus proche constituent les deux meilleures mesures permettant de prédire l'intensité de broutement.Key Words: Centaurea scabiosaCynipidaeFruit herbivoryPopulation distancePopulation isolationTortricidaeTephritidaeMots-clés: Centaurea scabiosaCynipidaeBroutement de fruitsDistance entre populationsIsolement de populationsTortricidaeTephritidaeHansen1981Lyneborg1965

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcoscienceSame topicBiological Control of Invasive SpeciesFrench-language works237,207