Parasitoids on the loose – experimental lack of support of the parasitoid movement hypothesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forest fragmentation can disrupt important ecological processes both within and among species. Of particular interest is the extent to which fragmentation decouples economically important pest species from their parasites. In an influential paper, Roland and Taylor (1997) advanced the hypothesis that forest fragmentation at a relatively fine spatial scale would disrupt the ability of parasitoids to aggregate in response to host density, thereby facilitating the build‐up of host populations at isolated sites. Our study provides the first experimental test of this notion. We augmented existing densities of forest tent caterpillar individuals at two types of sites: isolated forest fragments and continuous tracts of forest. Of the four parasitoid species studied by Roland and Taylor (1997), two were encountered in our experiment. For the sarcophagid fly Arachnidomyia aldrichi and the tachinid Carcelia malacosomae, we found no difference in parasitism rates among forest fragments and continuous forest tracts. A third tachinid species unique to this study, Lespesia frenchii , is known to be a broad generalist with respect to host choice. In this species, we observed significantly elevated parasitism in forest fragments, and higher parasitism at the forest edge than within the forest. All of these findings suggest complex effects of forest fragmentation on parasitoid movement, and warn against broad generalizations from observational studies. Forest fragmentation may affect movement patterns in a multitude of ways, significantly obscuring or modifying the simplest mechanisms proposed by Roland and Taylor (1997).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".