Egg dispersion is more important than competition type for herbivores attacked by a parasitoid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Herbivore fitness can be altered by a combination of interacting organisms, such as its food plant, conspecifics, and predators/parasitoids. Here, we tested relative effects of plant species, herbivore intraspecific competition type, and spatial distribution of the herbivore among plant units on herbivore survival and whether parasitoids modified these effects. We used an endophagous bruchine seed predator Callosobruchusmaculatus for the herbivore, and a braconid wasp Heterospilusprosopidis for the parasitoid. The survival rate of C. maculatus was measured for each of 16 combinations of two plants (bean species, Vigna unguiculata and V. radiata), two competition types of C. maculatus larvae (contest and scramble), two spatial distributions of hosts [sparse (1 C. maculatus larva per seed over 20 seeds) and dense (2 C. maculatus larvae per seed over ten seeds)], and with/without a parasitoid pair. In the absence of the parasitoid, C. maculatus survival rate was lower with V. radiata and in the contest type. With the parasitoid, the proportion parasitized hosts was independent of total host density. Neither the proportion of parasitized hosts nor host survival rate was affected by plant species or host strain, but they were affected by host spatial distribution. When host distribution was dense, a higher proportion of hosts were parasitized, and C. maculatus survival rate was lower. Here we discuss parasitoid potential as a selective agent for the sparse within‐pod distribution of its hosts in the field.
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".