Climate change and local host availability drive the northern range boundary in the rapid northward expansion of the eastern giant swallowtail butterfly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Aims Species distributions result from both biotic and abiotic interactions across large spatial scales. The interplay of these interactions as climate changes quickly has been understudied, particularly in herbivorous insects. Here, we investigate the relative impacts these influences on the putative northern range expansion of the giant swallowtail butterfly in North America. Location North America. Time period 1959-2018. Major taxa studied Eastern Giant swallowtail, Papilio cresphontes (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae); common hop tree, Ptelea trifoliata ; common prickly ash, Zanthoxylum americanum ; southern prickly ash, Zanthoxylum clava-herculis (Saphidales: Rutaceae). Methods We used data from museum collections and citizen science repositories to generate species distribution models. Distribution models were built for each species over two time periods (T1 = 1959-1999; T2 = 2000-2018). Results Models for P. cresphontes and associated host plants had high predictive accuracy on spatially-explicit test data (AUC 0.810-0.996). Occurrence data align with model outputs, providing strong evidence for a northward range expansion in the last 19 years (T2) by P. cresphontes . Host plants have shifted in more complex ways, and result in a change in suitable habitat for P. cresphontes in its historic range. P. cresphontes has a northern range which now closely aligns with its most northern host plant - continued expansion northward is unlikely, and historic northern range limits were likely determined by abiotic, not biotic, factors. Main conclusions Biotic and abiotic factors have driven the rapid northern range expansion in the giant swallowtail butterfly across North America in the last 20 years. A number of bioclimatic variables are correlated with this expansion, notably an increase in mean annual temperature and minimum winter temperature. We predict a slowing of northward range expansion in the next 20-50 years as butterflies are now limited by the range of host plants, rather than abiotic factors.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".