Host instar, body size and fitness in the koinobiotic parasitoid <i>Aphidius nigripes</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In aphidiine parasitoids, resources for growth and adult body size increase with host instar used by ovipositing females, but the fitness consequences of body size on fitness are poorly documented. We compared the fitness of male and female A. nigripes adults that varied in size as a consequence of developing in different instars of their host Macrosiphum euphorbiae. When reproductive fitness was measured without considering time, female wasps from small and large hosts performed similarly, contributing 125–175 foundresses plus 100–180 sons to the next generation. However, when expressed as the innate capacity for increase (rm), female fitness correlated with host‐induced variation of wasp size, indicating that micropopulations initiated by large wasps would increase faster. In a wind‐tunnel, a sex pheromone plume from large female wasps induced more males to fly upwind when released at a distance of 50 cm downwind than small females, indicating that large females were sexually more attractive. With respect to male body size effects on fitness, large individuals performed similar to small ones, whether fitness was measured by lifetime mating frequency, fertile inseminations, or proportion of daughters among progeny born from their mates. When young naive males of unequal size were directly competing for mating with a virgin female, small and large males had equal mating success, and large individuals were no more successful than small ones at displacing a competitor already positioned on a receptive female. In a wind‐tunnel test where males were scored on their ability to reach a female pheromone source, small and large males were equally affected by wind speed but reached the source located 50 cm downwind in equal proportions, suggesting similar capacity for finding mates by flying upwind. Our results indicate that despite host resources not being fixed at the time of attack for the koinobiont A. nigripes, fitness consequences of resource limitation by the mother may be perceived to be greater for daughters than sons, which would explain male‐biased sex ratio in early‐instar hosts.
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".