Intraguild interactions in aphid parasitoids
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We reviewed the literature on aphid parasitoids to determine the occurrence, nature and outcome of intraguild interactions. Intraguild interactions were described for larval, pupal and adult aphid parasitoids and by the type of natural enemy (fungus, predator, or parasitoid). They appear to be prevalent in most aphid parasitoid systems and, except for parasitoid‐parasitoid interactions, they are mostly asymmetric, with aphidophagous predators and pathogens killing parasitoids. The limited experimental evidence from field studies is insufficient to provide a comprehensive pattern of the consequences of intraguild interactions for aphid parasitoid populations in general and, more specifically, for the efficacy of biological control. However, because intraguild interactions are widespread in aphid‐natural enemy communities and mostly detrimental to aphid parasitoids, we conclude that intraguild interactions have a primary effect in driving fluctuations in aphid parasitoid populations. Drawing on case studies, we further argue that intraguild interactions can substantially alter the effectiveness of aphid parasitoids as biological‐control agents.
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.
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) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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 it