Foraging strategies and patch distributions: intraguild interactions between <i>Dicyphus hesperus</i> and <i>Encarsia formosa</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract 1. Competing foragers are affected by the distribution of resources, but can also affect resource distribution. Intraguild predators may affect the distribution of both the shared prey and the intraguild prey, which are also their competitors. 2. Variation in foraging strategies and their effects on resource distributions may influence the outcome of intraguild interactions between an intraguild predator and its intraguild prey. This was tested using whitefly Trialeurodes vaporariorum as the shared resource, the parasitoid Encarsia formosa as the intraguild prey, and Dicyphus hesperus , an omnivore, as the intraguild predator on tomato ( Lycopersicon esculentum ) and mullein ( Verbascum thapsus ) plants, within enclosures in a greenhouse. Treatments were established with and without the intraguild predator and at high and low intraguild prey densities. 3. The interaction between D. hesperus and E. formosa showed significant asymmetry, with D. hesperus populations being unaffected by E. formosa densities, although E. formosa populations were reduced by the inclusion of D. hesperus . However, the inclusion of D. hesperus diminished density‐dependent effects limiting E. formosa populations at high release densities. 4. Dicyphus hesperus reduced the average patch size and the proportion of patches occupied by whitefly. Increasing the release rate of E. formosa had no effect on any distributional measure. Based upon the foraging ecology of both species, the foraging activities of D. hesperus appear to have modified the patch distribution so that its foraging strategy becomes more successful than that of E. formosa . These properties may provide an important mechanism determining the outcome of species interactions.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".