Foraging behaviour at the fourth trophic level: a comparative study of host location in aphid hyperparasitoids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In studies of foraging behaviour in a multitrophic context, the fourth trophic level has generally been ignored. We used four aphid hyperparasitoid species: Dendrocerus carpenteri (Curtis) (Hymenoptera: Megaspilidae), Asaphes suspensus Walker (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae), Alloxysta victrix (Westwood) (Hymenoptera: Alloxystidae) and Syrphophagus aphidivorus (Mayr) (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae), to correlate their response to different cues with their ecological attributes such as host range and host stage. In addition, we compared our results with studies of primary parasitoids on the same plant–herbivore system. First, the olfactory response of females was tested in a Y‐tube olfactometer (single choice: plant, aphid, honeydew, parasitised aphid, aphid mummy, or virgin female parasitoid; dual choice: clean plant, plant with aphids, or plant–host complex). Second, their foraging behaviour was described on plants with different stimuli (honeydew, aphids, parasitised aphids, and aphid mummies). The results indicated that olfactory cues are probably not essential cues for hyperparasitoid females. In foraging behaviour on the plant, all species prolonged their total visit time and search time as compared to the control treatment (clean plant). Only A. victrix did not react to the honeydew. Oviposition in mummies prolonged the total visit time because of the long handling time, but the effect of this behaviour on search time could not be determined. No clear correlation between foraging behaviour and host stage or host range was found. In contrast to specialised primary aphid parasitoids that have strong fixed responses to specific kairomones and herbivore‐induced synomones, more generalist aphid hyperparasitoids seem to depend less on volatile olfactory stimuli, but show similarities with primary parasitoids in their use of contact cues while searching on a plant.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".