Preference and performance of the hyperparasitoid <i>Syrphophagus aphidivorus</i> (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae): fitness consequences of selecting hosts in live aphids or aphid mummies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. 1. Theoretical models predict that ovipositional decisions of parasitoid females should lead to the selection of the most profitable host for parasitoid development. Most parasitoid species have evolved specific adaptations to exploit a single host stage. However, females of the aphid hyperparasitoid Syrphophagous aphidivorus (Mayr) (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) display a unique and atypical oviposition behaviour by attacking either primary parasitoid larvae in live aphids, or parasitoid pupae in dead, mummified aphids. 2. In the laboratory, the correlation between host suitability and host preference of S. aphidivorus on the host Aphidius nigripes Ashmead parasitising the aphid Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Thomas) was investigated. 3. The relative suitability of the two host stages was determined by measuring hyperparasitoid fitness parameters (survival, development time, fecundity, sex ratio, and adult size of progeny), and calculating the intrinsic rate of population increase ( r m ). Host preference by S. aphidivorus females and the influence of aphid defence behaviour on host selection was also examined. 4. Hyperparasitoid offspring performance was highest when developing from hosts in aphid mummies and females consistently preferred this host to hosts in parasitised aphids. Although aphid defensive behaviour may influence host selection, it was not a determining factor. Ecological and evolutionary processes that might have led to dual oviposition behaviour in S. aphidivorus are discussed.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".