Chemical cues modulating electrophysiological and behavioural responses in the parasitic wasp <i>Cotesia sesamiae</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A better understanding of the chemical cues employed by parasitoids to locate their herbivore hosts will contribute towards effective exploitation of parasitoids as biological control agents against damaging crop pests. The current study was conducted to establish key bioactive compounds mediating behavioural response in the parasitic wasp Cotesia sesamiae (Cameron, 1906) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) by employing electrophysiological techniques and behavioural studies. Electroantennogram (EAG) recording with synthetic equivalents of herbivore-induced plant volatiles (HIPVs) using C. sesamiae confirmed that 13 compounds elicited electrophysiological activity. In an olfactometer bioassay, only (E)-4,8-dimethyl-1,3,7-nonatriene, (E)-β-farnesene, and (E,E)-4,8,-trimethyl-1,3,7-tridecatetraene elicited behavioural responses from the parasitoid when tested individually at a natural dose, while (R)-linalool and (E)-caryophyllene were attractive at the highest test dose. Other EAG-active HIPVs were not attractive either at lower or higher concentrations, suggesting their role as blend components rather than functioning as attractants by themselves. In contrast, nine-component synthetic HIPV blends formulated in the same ratio and concentration as in a natural sample was as attractive as the original headspace sample. By providing further insights into maize–stemborer–parasitoid tritrophic interactions, results from this study will help in selecting crop cultivars emitting appropriate HIPVs to attract natural enemies and perhaps repel damaging crop pests.
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".