MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411923802 · doi:10.3354/esr01437

Oviposition substrate preferences of two endangered prairie butterflies in an ex situ conservation environment

2025· article· en· W4411923802 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John Fieberg, Erik Runquist, Cale Nordmeyer, Seth Stapleton

Bibliographic record

VenueEndangered Species Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndangered speciesEx situ conservationSubstrate (aquarium)EcologyEnvironmental scienceGeographyBiologyAgroforestryHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Dakota skipper Hesperia dacotae and the Poweshiek skipperling Oarisma poweshiek (Hesperiidae) are imperiled univoltine prairie obligate butterflies native to the north-central USA and southern Canada, and ex situ conservation strategies have been identified as important tools for their recovery. Understanding the reproductive behaviors of these taxa is crucial for maximizing their reproductive potential and the efficacy of these conservation activities. It is generally assumed that, within Lepidoptera, females preferentially oviposit on substrates that are most suitable for the development of their offspring, but this has been shown to not always be true. Here, we examined whether Dakota skipper and Poweshiek skipperling females exhibited oviposition substrate preferences for 3 potential larval host graminoids: prairie dropseed Sporobolus heterolepis , tussock sedge Carex stricta , and smooth brome Bromus inermis . Our results suggest that, at least in an ex situ setting, Dakota skippers and Poweshiek skipperlings preferentially oviposit on graminoids over abiotic substrates, and both taxa demonstrate a stronger preference for prairie dropseed over tussock sedge and smooth brome. These results will better inform continued ex situ management and have important in situ implications, as these skippers may oviposit on invasive grasses (i.e. smooth brome in our experiment) despite the presence of more suitable host plants.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEndangered Species ResearchSame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207