MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mutualist‐induced transgenerational polyphenisms in cotton aphid populations

2007· article· en· W2152281125 on OpenAlexafffund
Edward B. Mondor, Jay A. Rosenheim, John F. Addicott

Bibliographic record

VenueFunctional Ecology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyAlateAphidAphis gossypiiLinepithemaPhenotypic plasticityOffspringEcologyBotanyZoologyAphididaeANTPEST analysisHomoptera

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1 In defensive mutualistic associations, reduced risk of predation should permit defended organisms to produce phenotypes with higher offspring production than non-mutualistic, unprotected conspecifics which require costly defensive traits. 2 Here, we show that cotton aphids, Aphis gossypii, which produce any combination of dwarf apterae (low intrinsic rate of increase), light green apterae (medium intrinsic rate of increase), dark green apterae (high intrinsic rate of increase) and alatae (winged dispersal morphs), alter offspring phenotypes when tended by predatory ants. 3 Aphids tended by the Argentine ant, Linepithema humile, have similar numbers of dwarf, dark green and alate offspring, but greater numbers of light green offspring, compared to untended colonies. 4 Because light green morphs have a higher intrinsic rate of increase than dwarf morphs but a decreased risk of parasitism compared to dark green morphs, increased production of the light green phenotype may optimize offspring production in order to maximize clone fitness. 5 Since many organisms have high levels of plasticity and mutualistic interactions are ubiquitous, mutualist-induced polyphenisms may be pervasive.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.783
Threshold uncertainty score0.675

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFunctional EcologySame topicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207