Similar Response of a Range Expanding Dragonfly to Low- and High-Elevation Predators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent range expansion of many species northward and upward in elevation suggests that the expanding species are able to cope with new biotic interactions in the leading edge. To test this hypothesis, we used a common garden experiment expanding the elevation range of an obligatorily univoltine dragonfly (Sympetrum striolatum) to investigate whether the growth, behavioral (food intake), and morphological (8th and 9th abdominal lateral spine) responses differed when confronted with dragonfly predators that dominate low-elevation (Aeshna cyanea) and high-elevation (A. juncea) lentic freshwater systems under two temperature treatments (20 °C and 24 °C). Growth rate and growth efficiency increased at higher temperature. Overall, low- and high-elevation predators induced a similar increase in growth rate and growth efficiency but a decrease in food intake at 24 °C. Lateral abdominal spines were longer only in low-elevation dragonflies at 18 °C. Our study suggests that range-expanding species may have been successful in colonizing new areas at higher elevations because they respond to dominant high-elevation predators in a similar way to the more familiar low-elevation predators.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 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".