Lost in Space: Preference and Performance of Parnassius smintheus Feeding on Sedum lanceolatum and Rhodiola integrifolia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A variety of factors affect how much certain plants are eaten by herbivorous insects. In the eastern foothills of the Rocky Mountains of Alberta, Canada, Parnassius smintheus larvae have been described as virtually monophagous on Sedum lanceolatum, however a second host plant Rhodiola integrifolia is found in the region. We explore the differences in herbivory, larval performance, and oviposition between host plants. We also surveyed host plant abundance in the field to determine the amount of feeding damage on both species. In the lab, we found that there was no preference for feeding on S. lanceolatum versus R. integrifolia. The growth and survival of P. smintheus larvae also was not affected by the host plant. In the field we found much lower rates of herbivory on R. integrifolia than S. lanceolatum. We conclude that there are differences in herbivory observed in the field because P. smintheus larvae encounter R. integrifolia much less than S. lanceolatum. Possible mechanisms include the two host plants occurring in different microhabitats, P. smintheus females not ovipositing near R. integrifolia, or P. smintheus larvae not being able to detect R. integrifolia from a distance.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".