Patch exploitation by non‐aggressive parasitoids under intra‐ and interspecific competition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The behavioral strategies evolved by insect parasitoids to optimize their foraging efforts have been the subject of many theoretical and empirical studies. However, the effects competition may have on these strategies, especially for species that do not engage in antagonistic behaviors, have received little attention. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of intraspecific and interspecific competition on patch exploitation strategies by two non‐aggressive species, T richogramma pintoi V oegelé and T richogramma minutum R iley ( H ymenoptera: T richogrammatidae), both generalist egg parasitoids. We analyzed the patch residence times of females, their patch‐leaving mechanisms, and the sex allocation of their progeny while foraging either alone, with an intraspecific competitor, or with an interspecific competitor. To some extent, each species responded differently to the presence of a competitor in the patch. T richogramma pintoi females did not change their patch‐leaving mechanisms in response to competition and behaved as if under an exploitative competition regime, whereas T . minutum females did change their patch‐leaving mechanisms in response to competition and remained longer in the host patch than expected. Antennal rejection, and not oviposition, was the proximate behavioral mechanism underlying patch‐leaving decisions by both species. Neither species adjusted the sex allocation of their progeny in response to competition. These results indicate that the effects of competition differ even among closely related parasitoid species.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".