Flight morphology corresponds to both surrounding landscape structure and local patch conditions in a highly specialized peatland butterfly ( <i>Lycaena epixanthe</i> )
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Movement mediates the response of populations and communities to landscape and habitat spatial structure, yet movement capability may itself be modified by selection pressures accompanying landscape change. Insect flight morphology can be affected by both the landscape surrounding habitat patches and the distribution of resources within habitat patches. 2. This study investigated the relative influence of local habitat patch conditions and surrounding landscape structure on variation in morphological traits associated with flight in the bog copper ( Lycaena epixanthe ), a butterfly endemic to temperate Nearctic peatlands. 3. Eight habitat patches were sampled to assess the influence of the surrounding landscape (connectivity of potential habitat and matrix composition) and patch size (an integrated proxy of resource density and spatial distribution) on investment into flight, measured by thorax and abdomen mass, and wing area. 4. The results revealed an effect of both local habitat conditions and landscape structure on flight‐related morphological traits. Increasing forest cover in the surrounding landscape, indicative of increased habitat patch isolation, corresponded with less mobile phenotypes in both sexes. Surrounding landscapes with more water were also generally associated with less mobile phenotypes. Investment into flight was greater in smaller peatlands in which host plant density is higher and more homogeneously distributed. 5. The present study highlights that morphological traits associated with mobility may be responding to both local habitat patch characteristics and surrounding landscape structure. It also supports the hypothesis that local habitat conditions contribute to morphological variation in butterflies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 teacher head, 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".