MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978612940 · doi:10.1007/s10886-007-9350-x

Flower vs. Leaf Feeding by Pieris brassicae: Glucosinolate-Rich Flower Tissues are Preferred and Sustain Higher Growth Rate

2007· article· en· W1978612940 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical Ecology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics, phytochemicals, and oxidative stress
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
FundersWageningen University and ResearchNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsSinigrinBiologyGlucosinolatePieris brassicaeBrassicaceaeInflorescenceBotanyInstarFlorBrassicaRacemeInsectHorticultureLarva

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interactions between butterflies and caterpillars in the genus Pieris and plants in the family Brassicaceae are among the best explored in the field of insect-plant biology. However, we report here for the first time that Pieris brassicae, commonly assumed to be a typical folivore, actually prefers to feed on flowers of three Brassica nigra genotypes rather than on their leaves. First- and second-instar caterpillars were observed to feed primarily on leaves, whereas late second and early third instars migrated via the small leaves of the flower branches to the flower buds and flowers. Once flower feeding began, no further leaf feeding was observed. We investigated growth rates of caterpillars having access exclusively to either leaves of flowering plants or flowers. In addition, we analyzed glucosinolate concentrations in leaves and flowers. Late-second- and early-third-instar P. brassicae caterpillars moved upward into the inflorescences of B. nigra and fed on buds and flowers until the end of the final (fifth) instar, after which they entered into the wandering stage, leaving the plant in search of a pupation site. Flower feeding sustained a significantly higher growth rate than leaf feeding. Flowers contained levels of glucosinolates up to five times higher than those of leaves. Five glucosinolates were identified: the aliphatic sinigrin, the aromatic phenylethylglucosinolate, and three indole glucosinolates: glucobrassicin, 4-methoxyglucobrassicin, and 4-hydroxyglucobrassicin. Tissue type and genotype were the most important factors affecting levels of identified glucosinolates. Sinigrin was by far the most abundant compound in all three genotypes. Sinigrin, 4-hydroxyglucobrassicin, and phenylethylglucosinolate were present at significantly higher levels in flowers than in leaves. In response to caterpillar feeding, sinigrin levels in both leaves and flowers were significantly higher than in undamaged plants, whereas 4-hydroxyglucobrassicin leaf levels were lower. Our results show that feeding on flower tissues, containing higher concentrations of glucosinolates, provides P. brassicae with a nutritional benefit in terms of higher growth rate. This preference appears to be in contrast to published negative effects of volatile glucosinolate breakdown products on the closely related Pieris rapae.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.230 · 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