MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012587277 · doi:10.1086/342628

Seed Predation in<i>Philodendron solimoesense</i>(Araceae) by Chalcid Wasps (Hymenoptera)

2002· article· en· W2012587277 on OpenAlexaff
Marc Gibernau, Jérôme Albre, Alain Déjean, Denis Barabé

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Plant Sciences · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsEspace pour la vieUniversité de Montréal
FundersInstitut National de la Recherche Agronomique
KeywordsEulophidaeBiologyGallHymenopteraBotanyGall waspPredationAraceaeEcologyParasitoid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relationships between Philodendron solimoesense and the larvae of two chalcid wasp species, inhabiting up to 88% of the infructescences, were studied in French Guiana. Exurus sp. (Chalcidoidea, Eulophidae, Tetrastichinae), is a gall maker and its larvae develop at the expense of seeds which are transformed into galls. We estimate that two seeds are necessary for the development of one eulophid. Their impact on plant reproductive success appears to be important, since parasitized fruits produce 60% fewer seeds than nonparasitized fruits and could explain the reduced seed set observed (53%). The larvae of a Sycophila sp. (Chalcidoidea, Eurytomidae, Eurytominae) are also present in the fruits of P. solimoesense occupied by eulophid larvae. The eurytomid larvae apparently develop at the expense of about one eulophid and are responsible for the death of 39% of them by direct predation or indirectly by consuming the gall tissues. Eulophids are far more abundant than eurytomids, since parasitized fruits contain an average of 11 eulophids but only one eurytomid. As chalcid wasp emergence takes place in a closed cavity and sex ratios are strongly biased in a given gall, local mate competition may occur as observed for fig wasps within figs.

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 score0.247

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.165 · 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

Citations16
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Plant SciencesSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207