The response of life-history traits to a new species in the community: a story of Drosophila parasitoids from the Rhône and Saône valleys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present study, we investigated the evolution of life-history traits in the main species of a community, after the arrival of a new competitor. Two parasitoid species, Leptopilina heterotoma and Asobara tabida, are present throughout the Rhône and Saône valleys, whereas a third species, Leptopilina boulardi, is slowly extending its distribution northwards. In the presence of L. boulardi, competing parasitoids experience a higher mortality and lower host availability. Resources should thus be re-allocated between traits according to these new factors. We compared life-history traits of populations of L. heterotoma and A. tabida in areas with and without L. boulardi. As predicted by both Price's balanced mortality hypothesis and the theory of life-history traits, we found that investment in reproduction is higher in southern populations for both native species, coupled with higher travelling abilities. However, only A. tabida paid their higher fecundity by a lower longevity. The absence of a clear trade-off between these traits in L. heterotoma may be explained by a lower metabolic rate in southern populations. These results highlight the importance of the community change over climate in the evolution of life-history traits in this parasitoid community.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".