Larval experience induces adult aversion to rearing host plants: a novel behaviour contrary to Hopkins' host selection principle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Hopkins' host selection principle (HSP) states that insects should prefer foliage from their rearing host plant over that of an alternative host. 2. The current study tested whether eastern spruce budworm, Choristoneura fumiferana (Clem.) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), that were laid and developed on, respectively, resistant and susceptible white spruce Picea glauca (Moench) Voss, showed differences in their feeding and oviposition preferences for these two hosts. 3. The data revealed that previous experience of spruce budworm on a host tree type does not influence the host acceptance and feeding behaviour of later larval stages. However, adult budworm reared on resistant white spruce needles preferentially selected susceptible white spruce needles as the host for their progeny, whereas those reared on susceptible needles showed no preference. 4. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first report of an insect showing an oviposition preference for the non‐rearing host plant. This would tend to increase mixing between insects from susceptible and resistant trees. The present results thus argue against Hopkins' HSP and suggest that learned aversion to resistant foliage experienced by larvae is carried into the adult stage.
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".