Effect Of Plant Structure, Host Density And Foraging Duration On Host Finding By<i>Trichogramma evanescens</i>(Hymenoptera:Trichogrammatidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While searching for hosts on plants, female parasitoids meet different plant structures and host densities that will influence their host finding success. In this study, we determined whether plant structure, host density, and foraging duration influenced the percentage of Ephestia kuehniella Zeller eggs parasitized by Trichogramma evanescens Westwood. One female was introduced to forage either 4 or 24 h on artificial plants of three different structures (simple, intermediate, and complex) on which 4 or 16 host eggs were glued. Plant structure influenced rate of parasitism in both foraging durations, whereas host density was found to be significant only when female had 4 h to forage. Mean rate of parasitism generally decreased with an increase in complexity of plant structure and host density in both foraging durations. Almost twice as many eggs were parasitized on simple plants compared with complex plants for all host densities and foraging durations. Overall, female parasitoids parasitized, on average, <1 egg/h, except when they foraged 4 h in the presence of 16 eggs. Plant structure therefore affects host-encountering success. Physical structure of a plant mediates ecological interactions and is involved in parasitoid-host population dynamics. It operates by increasing costs associated with host finding.
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) | 0.001 | 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".