Diel activity pattern and predation rate of the generalist predator <i>Dicyphus hesperus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study examined the diel activity pattern and the effect of diel activity pattern on predation rate and prey finding of Dicyphus hesperus Knight (Heteroptera: Miridae). To determine the diel activity pattern of D. hesperus, starved females were placed on tomato leaflets Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. (Solanaceae) under zero, low, or high light intensities at 02:00, 08:00, and 14:00 h, respectively, and the amount of time spent walking or resting during a 30‐min interval was recorded. Predation rates of D. hesperus females on Ephestia kuehniella Zeller (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) egg patches were determined under either a L16:D8 (long day) or L8:D16 (short day) diel period. Egg patches were removed from D. hesperus females after either 8 or 16 h of dark or 16 or 8 h of light, and the number of eggs consumed was counted. Dicyphus hesperus females spent more time searching for prey at night than during the day. Females ate eggs at a higher rate during the night than during the day. Overall, D. hesperus females had higher predation rates when reared under a long day diel cycle compared with females reared under a short day diel cycle. More females reared at the L16:D8 diel cycle found the egg patch during the night than during the day. There was no difference in egg patch finding between night and day for females reared at L8:D16. Overall, L16:D8 reared females found more egg patches than females reared at L8:D16. Therefore, D. hesperus females are more active and find and consume prey at a higher rate at night than day.
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".