MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prey feeding increases water stress in the omnivorous predator <i>Dicyphus hesperus</i>

2004· article· en· W2007171729 on OpenAlexafffund
Alice Sinia, Bernard D. Roitberg, Robert McGregor, David R. Gillespie

Bibliographic record

VenueEntomologia Experimentalis et Applicata · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaDouglas CollegeSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyPredationMiridaeOmnivoreHeteropteraPredatorHemipteraEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The effects of water stress (produced by water deprivation and prey feeding) on plant feeding were investigated in the omnivorous predator Dicyphus hesperus Knight (Hemiptera: Miridae). The objective was to determine if prey feeding aggravated water deficits and thus increased plant feeding. We measured plant feeding in a factorial experiment where female D. hesperus were prepared for experiments by providing or withholding water and/or prey for 24 h. We then evaluated the amount of plant feeding on Nicotiana tabacum seedlings by the direct observation of insects at three different densities of the prey, Ephestia kuehniella eggs. The amount of plant feeding, as measured by frequency of plant feeding bouts and time spent plant feeding during observation, was significantly greater for water‐deprived individuals than for those that had been provided with water. Individuals that had been provided with prey fed on plants at a significantly higher frequency than prey‐deprived individuals at two of the prey densities used in the experiment. These results support the hypothesis that plant feeding in zoophytophagous Hemiptera facilitates prey feeding by providing water that is essential for predation.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations52
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEntomologia Experimentalis et ApplicataSame topicInsect-Plant Interactions and ControlFrench-language works237,207