Does mother really know best? Oviposition preference reduces reproductive performance in the generalist parasitoid <i>Aphidius ervi</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The reproductive success of female parasitoids is dependent on their ability to accurately assess the suitability of a host for larval development. For generalist parasitoids, which utilize a broad range of species and instars as hosts, a set of assessment criteria determines whether a host is accepted or rejected. The suitability of a host, however, can only be imperfectly assessed by the female parasitoid, which can result in the selection of lesser quality hosts for oviposition. In this study we explored the disparity between host quality and host preference using the generalist koinobiotic parasitoid Aphidius ervi Haliday (Hymenoptera: Aphidiidae) and the host Aulacorthum solani (Harris) (Homoptera: Aphididae), the foxglove aphid. The second instar hosts produced the highest level of reproductive success, while third and fourth instars resulted in a substantially reduced reproductive performance. When given a choice of host instars, parasitoids preferred the older hosts for oviposition disregarding their reduced suitability for larval development. Results are discussed in context of mechanisms involved in A. ervi host selection and biases in the criteria used to assess hosts that may arise when parasitoids transfer host species between generations.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".