MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1016581229 · doi:10.1038/srep12749

Generation-based life table analysis reveals manifold effects of inbreeding on the population fitness in Plutella xylostella

2015· article· en· W1016581229 on OpenAlexaff
Peng Lü, Mingmin Zou, Nana Ren, Miao Xie, Liette Vasseur, Yifan Yang, Weiyi He, Guang Yang, Geoff M. Gurr, Youming Hou, Shijun You, Minsheng You

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersRecruitment Program of Global ExpertsNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPlutellaInbreedingDiamondback mothInbreeding depressionBiologyFecundityHatchingPopulation dynamicsPopulationLarvaZoologyEcologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding how inbreeding affects fitness is biologically important for conservation and pest management. Despite being a worldwide pest of many economically important cruciferous crops, the influence of inbreeding on diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (L.), populations is currently unknown. Using age-stage-specific life tables, we quantified the inbreeding effects on fitness-related traits and demographic parameters of P. xylostella. Egg hatching rate, survival and fecundity of the inbred line significantly declined compared to those of the outbred line over time. The inbred P. xylostella line showed significantly lower intrinsic rate of increase (r), net reproduction rate (R0), and finite increase rate (λ), and increasing generation time (T). Inbreeding effects vary with developmental stages and the fitness-related traits can be profoundly affected by the duration of inbreeding. Our work provides a foundation for further studies on molecular and genetic bases of the inbreeding depression for P. xylostella.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.285
Threshold uncertainty score0.179

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicInsect-Plant Interactions and ControlFrench-language works237,207