Bad housekeeping: why do aphids leave their exuviae inside the colony?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Animals can gain protection against predators and parasites by living in groups. The encounter-dilution effect provides protection when the probability of detection of a group does not increase in proportion to group size (i.e. encounter effect), so that predators do not offset the encounter effect by attacking more members of the group (i.e. dilution effect). In this paper, we propose a novel mechanism by which prey insects could gain by producing decoys that act as multiple targets for predators or parasitoids if these decoys are recognised as preys or hosts and negatively affect the patch foraging strategy of these predators and parasitoids. Such a decoy mechanism could be present in aphid colonies in which aphid exuviae are recognised and attacked by Aphidiine wasps. RESULTS: We conducted a behavioural study to evaluate the effect of exuviae on parasitoid patch residence time and egg allocation in experimental aphid patches with or without exuviae. We showed that exuviae are recognised and attacked at the same level as aphids when both are present in the patch. While parasitism rate was not significantly lower in patches with exuviae when the parasitoid left the patch, the time wasted by parasitoids to handle exuviae did influence the patch residence time. As a consequence, the attack rate on the live aphids was lower in patches that contain exuviae. CONCLUSION: Aphids had more time available to flee and thus each individual might gain protection against parasitoids by leaving their exuviae near and within the colony. These results demonstrate that the encounter-dilution effect provided by living in a group can be enhanced by extra-materials that act as decoy for natural enemies.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".