Potential Differences and Methods of Determining Gypsy Moth Female Flight Capabilities: Implications for the Establishment and Spread in Novel Habitats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The introduction of the Asian gypsy moth into novel environments continues with frequent interceptions in North America. There is a concern that these subspecies will pose a greater threat to the forests and urban environments of North America than the established gypsy moths (Lymantria dispardispar L.), due to their greater capacity for female flight. Asian gypsy moth populations vary in many key traits, including female flight capabilities. The potential impacts of female flight, in combination with the other key traits, on the ecology and spread of this insect are first discussed in this communication. This also provides the first review of most of the current literature on the variations in flight capability and flight distance of gypsy moth populations, as well as variation in other traits of concern and the potential methods of identification, with special attention paid to the Asian subspecies Lymantria dispar japonica Motschulsky and Lymantria dispar asiatica Vinkovskij. There are currently good tools for identifying the general origin of introduced gypsy moth populations, but these do not provide enough information to effectively manage introductions. Gypsy moth key traits differ among populations, even within each subspecies of the gypsy moth, so introduction of gypsy moths from other world areas into locations where the gypsy moth is already present could result in unwanted changes in gypsy moth biology. It also appears that the introduction of flight-capable females could enhance a population’s dispersal capability and require modifications to management protocols used for flightless females. Therefore, rapid tools to assess key traits in introduced populations are needed to adequately plan for, or deal with, new introductions into novel habitats.
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 | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".