Host-instar selection in the aphid parasitoid Monoctonus paulensis (Hymenoptera: Braconidae, Aphidiinae): a preference for small pea aphids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Monoctonus paulensis is a solitary parasitoid of several species of aphids, including the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum. We evaluated host-instar selection by comparing the parasitoid's preference for the four nymphal instars of the pea aphid, presented two at a time in dichotomous choice tests. Females parasitized more, and laid more eggs in, the relatively smaller aphids among those available. This preference was independent of aphid instar: L1 > L2 > L3 > L4. Preference was not influenced by female size or age. Normal and anaesthetized aphids were accepted equally. The total time needed by a female to capture, position, and parasitize an aphid varied among host instars, with fourth instars requiring nearly twice as much time as first, second, and third instars. The probability of an attacked aphid escaping or avoiding parasitism increased with aphid instar, from ~10% in first and second instars to ~50% in fourth instars. Although fourth-instar pea aphids contain more resources for offspring development than smaller counterparts, it may not be profitable for a female to invest opportunity time in attacks on large aphids.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".