Topical application of a plant extract to different life stages of <i>Trichoplusia ni</i> fails to influence feeding or oviposition behaviour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We have previously determined that larval feeding experience with a feeding/oviposition deterrent modified the feeding responses of larvae and oviposition responses of subsequent moths. These behavioural changes were attributed to learning, but the possibility of chemical legacy could not be ruled out. In the present study, we have topically applied a feeding/oviposition deterrent plant extract from Hoodia gordonii (Masson) Sweet ex Decne (Asclepiadaceae) to larvae, pupae, and adults of Trichoplusia ni (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to determine whether the feeding response of larvae and oviposition response of subsequent female moths is similarly modified by chemicals applied to the external surface of the insect. Our results indicate that traces of the extract that may be present internally or externally on the larvae do not reduce the feeding deterrent response of larvae. Furthermore, traces of the extract in or on larvae, pupae, or adult moths did not alter oviposition choice of female moths, leading us to discount the role of experience through topical application in this study. The fact that feeding/oviposition choice was only influenced by prior feeding experience of the larvae and not by topical administration suggests that habituation via sensory stimulation through mouthpart chemosensilla is likely a central phenomenon. Continuous exposure of adult moths to the extract over a period of 7 days did not affect the oviposition response of the female moths, ruling out the role of adult experience on host‐plant selection in T. ni. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the role of experience via topical application of chemicals onto all life stages of the insect except the egg. Chemical legacy may not be playing a role in influencing the oviposition choices of female T. ni moths.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".