What omnivores eat: direct effects of induced plant resistance on herbivores and indirect consequences for diet selection by omnivores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary 1. Omnivory, where an animal crosses trophic boundaries, is thought to be common in natural and managed communities. Foraging theory predicts that omnivores will balance their diet as a result of nutritional needs, food quality and availability of alternate foods. We investigated diet selection of the western flower thrips [Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande)], a herbivore under some circumstances, and a predator under other circumstances. 2. We demonstrate that induced plant resistance can indirectly affect diet selection by thrips. The density of herbivorous spider mites is reduced on induced plants compared to controls and is also positively correlated with the number of mite eggs that the thrips consume. 3. In choice tests, mite eggs from induced plants were less preferred by thrips than eggs from control plants. Mite egg size was also smaller on induced plants compared to controls. However, this alone did not explain the diet selection by thrips. In a field experiment, thrips avoided colonizing induced plants, but they were attracted to induced plants that we inoculated with mites. Thus, the presence of herbivorous prey on induced plants attenuated the negative effects of induced resistance on thrips colonization. 4. Feeding decisions of thrips can be influenced by several factors. We showed previously ( Agrawal, Kobayashi & Thaler 1999a ) Influence of prey availability and induced host plant resistance on omnivory by western flower thrips. (Ecology, 80, 518–523.) that reducing plant quality can cause omnivores to shift towards relatively more predation than herbivory. We show now that on induced plants, reduced prey density and quality may antagonize this shift towards increased predation. 5. Induced plant resistance has negative effects on both the plant‐based food resource (direct effect) and the animal‐based food resource (indirect effect) of omnivorous thrips. Thus, variation in the quantity and quality of food items interact to determine the diet selection of omnivores.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".