Preference and performance of Hypena opulenta on Vincetoxicum rossicum foliage from sun versus shade habitats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Characteristics of individual plants from the same species can differ significantly between habitats based on abiotic factors such as light intensity and temperature.In turn, these differences in plant quality can affect herbivores that feed on the plant.Here, we examined the effects of habitat on leaf characteristics for the invasive vine Vincetoxicum rossicum, as well as the preference and performance of its biological control agent, Hypena opulenta, on sun versus shade foliage.V. rossicum leaves grown in sunny habitats were tougher, thicker, and had lower water content than shade leaves.H. opulenta larvae consumed greater amounts of shaded foliage than sun foliage and were predominately night-active.H. opulenta larval development did not differ between sun and shade foliage diets; however, females preferred to oviposit on sun foliage.The underlying mechanisms of these results are discussed, as well as their implications for the biological control of Vincetoxicum species.Table 1 Summary of General Linear Model (GLM) (Habitat x Time x Month) on H. opulenta foliage consumption. List of Tables
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) | 0.001 | 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".