Feeding through artificial membranes reduces fecundity for females of the blood‐feeding insect, <i>Rhodnius prolixus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The blood-feeding insect, Rhodnius prolixus, has been raised in the laboratory for close to 100 years. Various feeding techniques have been employed ranging from the use of warm-blooded hosts, to the use of previously collected blood offered through artificial membranes. This study compared the fecundity in mated and unmated females fed rabbit blood directly from the shaved belly of a rabbit to that of females fed defibrinated rabbit blood through an artificial membrane. These results confirm previous reports that this insect's feeding efficacy is reduced using an artificial membrane. It also demonstrates for the first time that the fecundity index, which measures the efficiency of turning the blood meal into eggs, is significantly reduced. We suggest that the natural feeding on a warm-blooded host may provide cues that have the short-term effect of enhancing the act of feeding and the long-term effect of increasing egg production efficiency. Until an artificial feeding method that does not interfere with feeding and fecundity is devised, experiments on reproduction in R. prolixus warrant the use of a warm-blooded host to emulate feeding in its natural setting.
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".