Host concealment: a determinant for host acceptance and feeding in an ectoparasitoid wasp
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In general, ectoparasitoids attack concealed hosts in protected situations whereas endoparasitoids use both concealed and exposed hosts. The difference is assumed to be the consequence of ecological constraints; ectoparasitic larvae are vulnerable both to predation and to climatic factors such as rainfall, and, hence, require some structures to protect themselves. I hypothesized that such ecological constraints should act as a within‐species selection pressure to female ectoparasitoids, and hence that females should recognize the degree of concealment of the host and prefer concealed over exposed hosts for oviposition. To test this hypothesis, I examined 1) whether host concealment could influence host acceptance by the ectoparasitoid wasp Agrothereutes lanceolatus and 2) whether host concealment could influence the fitness of the offspring. Female wasps recognized and attacked (probed) both cocooned and exposed host prepupae in equal proportions, but discriminated between them after ovipositor insertion, and preferred the former for oviposition and the latter for host‐feeding. They also selected to oviposit on hosts concealed in paper tubes. Thus host concealment was important for host selection in A. lanceolatus . Offspring fitness (measured as survival and size) was much lower on exposed hosts than on cocooned and paper‐concealed hosts, even under laboratory conditions. Thus, host concealment influenced the fitness of wasp offspring, and, hence, is a good indicator of host quality for female wasps. Adaptiveness of host selection and host‐feeding in A. lanceolatus in relation to host concealment is discussed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".