Use of essential versus nonessential fatty acids during flight in monarch butterflies: Implications for the importance of nectaring during migration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Many insect species are migratory, but migration is energetically costly, leading to a trade‐off between migration and subsequent reproduction. Of importance to the allocation of resources to migration and reproduction is the relative use of essential and nonessential fatty acids. How different ecological conditions experienced by individuals affect differential allocation of nutrients has not been well explored, especially in insects. Our goal was to evaluate how reproductive (summer) and migratory (fall) rearing conditions affect the source and allocation patterns of fatty acids used during experimental flights (0–6 h) in monarch butterflies ( Danaus plexippus L.). We used larval and adult diets manipulated isotopically (δ 13 C) and chromatographic analyses to determine fatty acid composition and source in the fat body. C4 versus C3 carbohydrate feeding increased the δ 13 C value of lipids in monarchs (−31.2‰ vs. −22.1‰) and increased total fatty acid concentrations reflecting lipid synthesis during adult feeding. Fuel use during flight differed, with essential fatty acids being more conserved in fall versus summer conditions (21% vs. 32% loss, respectively), indicating that the environmental cues responsible for the onset of migration result in physiological changes that modify lipid use. Frequency of stopovers for nectar and nectar quality available during migration will influence the capacity of monarchs to conserve essential fatty acids up to and through the migration and overwintering period.
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) | 0.001 | 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".