Host nutritional status mediates degree of parasitoid virulence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parasitic organisms rely on the resources of their hosts to obtain nutrients essential for growth and reproduction. Insect parasitoids constitute an extreme condition since they develop in a single host from which they typically consume all available resources. As a result, the host is killed following parasitism. However, a few intriguing cases of host survival have been reported wherein hosts resume foraging and may even reproduce following parasitoid emergence. Yet, the ultimate and proximate mechanisms responsible for host recovery remain unresolved. We tested the impact of host nutrition on host fate and parasitoid fitness, using the association between Dinocampus coccinellae and the spotted lady beetle Coleomegilla maculata . Under laboratory conditions, we fed parasitized ladybirds on different aphid diets, with or without pollen. In the field, we followed the fate of parasitized ladybirds during seasonal variations in pollen and aphid abundance. We found that ladybirds fed on aphids or a combination of aphids and pollen recovered more frequently from parasitism (from 65 to 81%) than those eating only pollen (48%). Field data suggest that the fate of parasitized ladybirds is also related to food availability. On the other hand, when hosts fed on a combination of aphids and pollen, consequences for parasitoid fitness were often ‘all‐or‐nothing’: parasitoid emergence rate was the lowest of all host nutrition regimes (∼50%), but parasitoids that did emerge were larger than individuals emerging from other host nutrition regimes. Laboratory and field results concur to show that host nutritional status during parasitoid development significantly influences both host fate and parasitoid fitness.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".