Overwintering survival of <i>Drosophila suzukii</i> (Diptera: Drosophilidae) in temperature regimes emulating partly protected winter conditions in a cold–temperate climate of Québec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Field-acclimated Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae) from the Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean region, Québec, Canada, were examined over two years for winter survival, under the hypothesis that flies select protected overwintering microhabitats. In 2016–2017, flies trapped alive in the field or emerged from infested fruits were submitted to four winter regimes of either constant or daily fluctuating temperatures of 5 °C (2–8 °C) or 10 °C (7–13 °C). In 2017–2018, two fluctuating regimes averaging either 1 °C (–2 to 4 °C) or 3 °C (0–6 °C) were tested. Survival was modelled using Cox proportional hazard models testing probability that mortality risk varies with cold winter regime, fly sex, and fly provenance. Hazard ratios were about 1.7 times higher for males than for females. Models indicate that flies in constant and fluctuating 10 °C, in constant 5 °C, or in fluctuating 1 °C with daily exposure to –2 °C would not survive a six-month winter. Female survival extended to the next summer in fluctuating regimes averaging 5 °C or 3 °C. Estimates of 0.95 quantile survival (5%) indicate that overwintering D. suzukii experiencing such cold temperature regimes during winter, with no prolonged sub-zero temperatures, could survive until July of the following year, which is likely at the high population densities observed.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".