MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992521606 · doi:10.1139/z09-001

Effects of early growth conditions on body composition, allometry, and survival in the ladybird beetle Harmonia axyridis

2009· article· en· W1992521606 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Caitlin Dmitriew, John M. Carroll, Locke Rowe

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsHarmonia axyridisBiologyLarvaBiological dispersalReproductionAllometryEcologyZoologyPredationWingCoccinellidaeAnimal sciencePredator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During both the larval and adult stages, the ladybird beetles Harmonia axyridis (Pallas, 1773) feed primarily on aphids, populations of which may fluctuate dramatically in time and space. Harmonia axyridis were reared under three resource treatments: high, low, and improving. We predicted that beetles experiencing consistently poor larval conditions would allocate limited resources to dispersal traits (by increasing relative wing surface area and fat storage), whereas larvae facing good or improving conditions were predicted to allocate preferentially to reproductive traits. As predicted, beetles reared at low food had lower wing loading and stored more fat than individuals reared at consistently high food. When conditions were initially poor but improved during development, body size was reduced relative to the high food treatment, though wing area scaled similarly. Allocation of fat and protein was dependent on both sex and treatment. Females in improving conditions stored less fat, and males less protein, relative to low food conditions. This is suggestive of a trade-off between reproduction and dispersal that is resolved differently between the sexes. Unexpectedly, adult survival under starvation was not appreciably affected by larval growth conditions, although males lived about 10 days longer, on average.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicInsect-Plant Interactions and ControlFrench-language works237,207