Improving the knowledge of Aphytis melinus biology to optimize its mass production: influence of food source, host and parasitoid densities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this work is to study the influence of several factors on fecundity and proportion of female parasitoids in the mass \nrearing of Aphytis melinus DeBach (Hymenoptera Aphelinidae). Its mass-rearing can be influenced by both host and parasitoid \ndensities and by the available food source. In this study, host density did not influence the number of observed offspring per female \nper day (1.14 ± 0.15) or the sex ratio (0.32 ± 0.07 ♂) of A. melinus. Parasitoid density, on the other hand, did influence offspring \nproduction, with the higher parasitoid densities resulting in the lowest number of offspring (0.41 ± 0.07 per female per \nday). Medium and low parasitoid densities, meanwhile, produced similar numbers of offspring (0.83 ± 0.18 and 0.77 ± 0.13 per \nfemale per day, respectively). Sex ratio (0.43 ± 0.03 ♂) was not influenced by parasitoid density. The highest survival for \nA. melinus was achieved with honey (14.1 ± 1.2 days), but no statistical difference was observed with 10% honey. A mixture of \nhoney, sugar and agar was not as good food source (only 3.0 ± 0.6 days of survival). Observed parasitoid host feeding was not \ncontinuous in the honey and 10% honey treatments, occurring only during 11.9 and 20.4% of the life-span, respectively. Maximum \nefficiency in offspring production per female was achieved when the host/parasitoid ratio was 5 to 10 hosts per female parasitoid \nper day. To maintain the lowest male bias of the offspring, female parasitoids should be in contact with the host for a period \nof no more than 3-4 days.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".