Western flower thrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) preference for thrips-damaged leaves over fresh leaves enables uptake of symbiotic gut bacteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To understand the evolution of insect gut symbionts it is important to determine how they are passed on to the next generation. We studied this process in Erwinia species bacteria that inhabit the gut of western flower thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande) (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). This is a polyphagous herbivore and a world-wide pest in agricultural crops. With bacteria in the gut, the thrips larval development time can be shorter and its oviposition rate higher compared to bacteria-free thrips. Bacteria are not directly transmitted from mother to offspring, but larvae acquire bacteria from the leaves right after they hatch. These gut bacteria are present on the leaves on feeding sites used by other thrips before the larvae arrive, probably because these other thrips have deposited bacteria via faeces or regurgitation. In this study we addressed the question whether the transmission route of symbiotic bacteria influences the thrips feeding behaviour, and determined the feeding and oviposition preference of thrips, by giving them a choice between leaves with and leaves without prior grazing by other western flower thrips. This was studied for thrips with and thrips without gut bacteria. Young larvae prefer to feed on leaves that where grazed before by other thrips and females prefer to oviposit on these grazed leaves. These results are in contradiction to earlier studies that have found that thrips larvae fitness is lower on thrips damaged plants than on clean plants. This behaviour does however promote the establishment of gut bacteria in the thrips. The factors determining the preference for thrips-damaged leaves may be the physical leaf damage or odours that are produced by the plant, the bacteria or both.
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".