MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4396514036 · doi:10.1242/jeb.246589

Night-light illuminates wasp behaviour

2024· article· en· W4396514036 sur OpenAlexaff
Alexandra N. Schoen

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueEcology, Conservation, and Geographical Studies
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Winnipeg
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAposematismBiologyEcologyPredationPredator

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Do you ever have a hard time falling asleep if there is light streaming into your bedroom, which you cannot block out? You could say that your biological sleep cycles are disrupted by uninvited light. The same thing happens to animals and plants, particularly as artificial light pollution at night (e.g. city light glow, streetlamps etc.) has been increasing since the 19th century. Lots of living things use natural light as a cue for biological activity, such as feeding and mating. In addition, some animals that are usually active during the day are now becoming active at night because of artificial light. Elisa Gomes and colleagues at the University of Lyon, France, were particularly interested in figuring out if artificial light impacts the feeding and mating rituals of a parasitic wasp, Venturia canescens. A previous study by Gomes showed that this wasp species, which is usually active during the day, also became active at night when exposed to artificial light. Knowing this, Gomes wondered whether artificial light might lead the wasps to feed and lay eggs at night, instead of during the day, as well as altering their lifespans.To test this, Gomes housed the wasps in plastic boxes at a constant temperature (25°C) with periodic access to food (sugar water) and Mediterranean flour moth larvae, the hosts upon which the parasitic wasps lay their eggs. The team then recreated the natural light patterns of 12 h of light followed by a dark night. While some of the insects experienced low intensity light pollution overnight, comparable to city skyglow, others had their nights disturbed by high intensity light (comparable to a streetlamp). Over a 2-week period, the team monitored the food eaten by the wasps and counted how many eggs they laid in the moth larvae. The researchers also recorded when the wasp offspring emerged from the parasitized moths to determine if artificial light impacted the wasp larvae's development.Gomes found that the wasps fed more and laid more eggs at night when exposed to nocturnal light pollution. The wasps also lived longer when the artificial light that they experienced at night was more intense, which Gomes speculates might be because the wasps had more time to feed. Despite laying more eggs in artificial light at night, the wasps did not produce more eggs over the entire course of their lifetime. This may have been because the wasps that were experiencing nocturnal light pollution laid fewer eggs during the day. Finally, older wasps that had been exposed to artificial light at night laid eggs that developed faster than eggs laid in total darkness. However, this did not seem to impact the offspring's ultimate development – they grew to be the same size as the offspring produced by parents that experienced complete darkness at night, which developed slower.Gomes suspects that the offspring exposed to artificial light may have other physiological differences caused by nocturnal light pollution, which were not tested in this study. She also highlights several factors that need to be investigated further, such as what happens when the wasps experience the temperature falls that occur naturally at night. It is also not known if these wasps are sensitive to different colours or shades of artificial light, which could be an intriguing direction for future research. Ultimately, it is clear that artificial light alters the wasp's behaviour, although it remains a mystery whether this is for better or worse.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,005
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,017

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,011
Tête enseignante GPT0,272
Écart entre enseignants0,261 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Experimental Biology→Même sujetEcology, Conservation, and Geographical Studies→Travaux en français237 207→