War of the wasps: is <em>Diadegma insulare</em> or <em>Microplitis plutellae</em> a more effective parasitoid of the Diamondback Moth, <em>Plutella xylostella</em>?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parasitism levels by Diadegma insulare (Muesebeck) (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) and Microplitis plutellae (Haliday) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) at various densities of their host, Plutella xylostella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae), were assessed. Cages with densities of 10 hosts, 20 hosts, and 40 hosts were set up, with the cage volume (40 500 cm3) and number of wasps (2 females) remaining constant. The host populations were also exposed to the wasps for two different exposure times: 1 day and 3 days. The study showed that D. insulare was a better parasitoid overall, achieving a level of parasitism equal to or higher than M. plutellae at all densities. Microplitis plutellae performed best at a lower host density (76% ± 9% of 10 hosts vs. 43% ± 3% of 40 hosts). Diadegma insulare performed similarly at all densities tested (75% ± 5% of 10 hosts, 83% ± 4% of 20 hosts, and 79% ± 6% of 40 hosts). This suggests that D. insulare may be the better parasitoid overall and should be applied in severe, large-scale infestations, while M. plutellae may be better for small-scale infestations.
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) | 0.006 | 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".