Influence of prey quality on the fitness of two phenotypes of <i>Harmonia axyridis</i> adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The performance of Harmonia axyridis Pallas (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) adults of the aulica and nigra phenotypes fed on Aphis fabae Scopoli and Myzus persicae (Sulzer) was compared by measuring their voracity, daily biomass consumption, daily weight gain, efficiency of food utilisation, and reproductive capacity. Our results demonstrated differences in the suitability of A. fabae and M. persicae for the two phenotypes of the predator. This suggests that either differences occur in the nutritive requirements of the predators, or in the nutritive value of the two prey species. Both A. fabae and M. persicae supported the growth and oviposition of the aulica and nigra phenotypes. Although nigra females consumed fewer M. persicae, they achieved the same daily weight gain as aulica females. The predator phenotypes consumed the same amount of A. fabae, but the daily weight gain of aulica females was higher than that of nigra. The two predator phenotypes had the same feeding efficiency when consuming M. persicae or A. fabae. The reproductive capacity of nigra females was higher, when this phenotype consumed A. fabae rather than M. persicae.
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".