MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Interactive effects of larval host and competition on adult fitness: an experimental test with seed beetles (Coleoptera: Bruchidae)

2005· article· en· W2009215027 on OpenAlexafffund
Steven M. Vamosi

Bibliographic record

VenueFunctional Ecology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyCompetition (biology)FecundityCallosobruchus chinensisLarvaCallosobruchus maculatusHost (biology)Intraspecific competitionZoologyEcologyBotanyPEST analysisPopulationDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Resources and intensity of competition encountered during development can have significant consequences for adult fitness, yet their effects are rarely considered simultaneously. Furthermore, it is often assumed that these factors affect adult fitness only indirectly through their effects on body mass. Here, I examined the direct effects of larval host type and intensity of competition on mass at emergence and fecundity in two species of bruchid beetles ( Callosobruchus spp.). There was no effect of competition treatments on mass at emergence of C . chinensis females reared in Adzuki or Mung Beans. Controlling for body mass, there was a significant effect of competition treatment on number of eggs laid by C . chinensis females that had been reared on Mung Beans, with those reared with a competitor laying significantly fewer eggs than females that had been reared in the absence of competition. Competition had a highly significant effect on mass at emergence of C . maculatus females reared in Mung Beans. In the absence of a significant effect of competition on mean mass at emergence in Adzuki Beans, females reared with two competitors laid significantly fewer eggs than did females reared with either one or no competitors. For certain combinations of bruchid species and resource type, thus, females laid fewer eggs for a given mass at emergence if they had been subject to competition during their larval phase. These results reveal subtle differences in the responses of closely related species with similar life histories to resources and competition during development, calling into question current generalizations about the direct effects of competition on fitness.

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 score0.657
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.195
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.

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

Citations44
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFunctional EcologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207