Influence of host size on oviposition behaviour and fitness of <i>Elachertus cacoeciae</i> attacking a low‐density population of spruce budworm <i>Choristoneura fumiferana</i> larvae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary 1. Oviposition behaviour and host size − fitness relationships of a gregarious, idiobiont ectoparasitoid, Elachertus cacoeciae (Howard) (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae), were studied by implanting one fourth‐, fifth‐, and sixth‐instar spruce budworm Choristoneura fumiferana (Clemens) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) larva per tree in a stand where the density of the wild C. fumiferana population was low. 2. Development time of E. cacoeciae larvae was quickest on fifth‐instar C. fumiferana larvae, which were the preferred hosts for oviposition. 3. Brood sex ratio (proportion of females) was related positively to increasing C. fumiferana instar, indicating that more females were laid on larger hosts. 4. Parasitoid offspring size increased with increasing C. fumiferana instar and decreased with increasing brood size on smaller hosts. Female but not male size was related positively to increasing brood sex ratio (proportion of females). 5. Under laboratory conditions, parasitoid longevity was related positively to parasitoid size and realised lifetime fecundity, and clutch size was related positively to host size. 6. These results suggest that selection of intermediate‐sized C. fumiferana larvae may be adaptive for E. cacoeciae .
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".