MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322581614 · doi:10.3354/esr01230

Phenology, population size, and factors influencing variation in density of an endangered butterfly, the mottled duskywing Erynnis martialis

2023· article· en· W4322581614 on OpenAlexafffundabout
A Demarse, E Trendos, J Linton, T Flockhart, A Brewster, Nusha Keyghobadi, L Custode, DR Norris

Bibliographic record

VenueEndangered Species Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Forest ServiceNature Conservancy of CanadaMitacsNature ConservancyWeston Family FoundationUniversity of GuelphU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsEndangered speciesButterflyPhenologyWoodlandEcologyAbundance (ecology)PopulationBiologyHabitatGeographyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding the natural history and ecology of endangered species is critical for developing effective, evidence-based conservation and management plans. The mottled duskywing Erynnis martialis is a skipper butterfly inhabiting oak savanna, oak woodlands, alvars, and tallgrass prairie habitats containing their host plants, Ceanothus spp. Listed as endangered in Canada, few populations persist in Ontario and Manitoba, but there are no formal estimates of population size or what influences spatial variation in adult density, and we have limited knowledge of phenology. To address these knowledge gaps, we conducted spatially explicit mark-re-sighting over multiple years at 2 of the largest known populations in Ontario (specific locations withheld). Population sizes at Site A were estimated to be 1159 individuals (confidence limit [CL] = 845-1598) in 2021 and at Site B, 626 individuals (CL = 466-851) in 2020 and 2227 individuals (CL = 1110-4463) in 2021. Most (81%) re-sightings occurred within 5 d of marking, suggesting that adults likely live less than 1 wk. High densities of adults were generally associated with high Ceanothus spp. abundance and open canopy, but relationships varied by site and year. Peak flight across sites and years ranged from 5-13 June. We recommend that existing and prospective habitat managers prevent succession with brush-cutting and/or prescribed burns, specifically in areas of abundant Ceanothus spp. This work provides valuable information for future management and recovery efforts, including planned translocations to both historically occupied and newly restored sites.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.338
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEndangered Species ResearchSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207