A hydrogen isoscape for tracing the migration of herbivorous lepidopterans across the Afro‐Palearctic range
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale Many insect species undertake multigenerational migrations in the Afro‐tropical and Palearctic ranges, and understanding their migratory connectivity remains challenging due to their small size, short life span and large population sizes. Hydrogen isotopes ( δ 2 H) can be used to reconstruct the movement of dispersing or migrating insects, but applying δ 2 H for provenance requires a robust isotope baseline map (i.e. isoscape) for the Afro‐Palearctic. Methods We analyzed the δ 2 H in the wings ( δ 2 H wing ) of 142 resident butterflies from 56 sites across the Afro‐Palearctic. The δ 2 H wing values were compared to the predicted local growing‐season precipitation δ 2 H values ( δ 2 H GSP ) using a linear regression model to develop an insect wing δ 2 H isoscape. We used multivariate linear mixed models and high‐resolution and time‐specific remote sensing climate and environmental data to explore the controls of the residual δ 2 H wing variability. Results A strong linear relationship was found between δ 2 H wing and δ 2 H GSP values ( r 2 = 0.53). The resulting isoscape showed strong patterns across the Palearctic but limited variation and high uncertainty for the Afro‐tropics. Positive residuals of this relationship were correlated with dry conditions for the month preceding sampling whereas negative residuals were correlated with more wet days for the month preceding sampling. High intra‐site δ 2 H wing variance was associated with lower relative humidity for the month preceding sampling and higher elevation. Conclusion The δ 2 H wing isoscape is applicable for tracing herbivorous lepidopteran insects that migrate across the Afro‐Palearctic range but has limited geolocation potential in the Afro‐tropics. The spatial analysis of uncertainty using high‐resolution climatic data demonstrated that many African regions with highly variable evaporation rates and relative humidity have δ 2 H wing values that are less related to δ 2 H GSP values. Increasing geolocation precision will require new modeling approaches using more time‐specific environmental data and/or independent geolocation tools.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".