MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000929786 · doi:10.1139/z02-209

Pea aphid,<i>Acyrthosiphon pisum</i>, cornicle ontogeny as an adaptation to differential predation risk

2002· article· en· W2000929786 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Edward B. Mondor, Bernard D. Roitberg

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSimon Fraser University
KeywordsAcyrthosiphon pisumBiologyAphidAphididaeHarmonia axyridisInstarPredationPredatorPheromoneCoccinellidaeBotanyZoologyHomopteraEcologyPEST analysisLarva

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aphids possess unique anatomical structures called cornicles through which a defensive secretion containing alarm pheromone is often emitted when a predator attacks an aphid. The levels of alarm pheromone in cornicle droplets from the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris), vary considerably during development; however, it is not clear how the length of the cornicle changes during ontogeny. The length of the cornicle relative to the lengths of other body structures may have profound effects on aphid defense and alarm signal diffusion. Using previously published morphological measurements of pea aphids and observing interactions between pea aphids and multicolored Asian ladybird beetles, Harmonia axyridis Pallas, it was observed that pea aphid cornicles elongate proportionally more than other body parts during the first four instars, when alarm-pheromone levels have peaked, than during the fifth (adult) instar, when pheromone levels decline. Pea aphids also are more likely to emit cornicle droplets and daub them onto a predator when the cornicles are undergoing such rapid growth. We suggest that because of a high risk of predation, rapid cornicle growth in juveniles has evolved both for individual defense and for the inclusive fitness benefits of alarm signaling.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.842
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

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)0.0040.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.184 · 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.

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

Citations21
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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