Patch exploitation strategies of parasitoids under indirect intra‐ and inter‐specific competition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Insect parasitoids are expected to evolve behavioural strategies to exploit resources in competitive environments optimally. Indirect competition between parasitoids is particularly common because exploited host patches remain available in the environment for other foraging individuals. 2. The effects of indirect competition on the behaviour of two closely related generalist egg parasitoids were investigated: T richogramma pintoi V oegelé and T richogramma minutum R iley ( Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae ). Patch residence time, a patch‐leaving mechanism, and progeny sex allocation of females foraging were analysed: (i) alone, (ii) in patches partially parasitised by conspecifics, and (iii) in patches partially parasitised by heterospecifics. 3. Each species responded differently to indirect competition. T richogramma pintoi females shortened their patch residence times, but they did not adjust their progeny sex ratios. In contrast, T. minutum females did not modify their patch residence times, but they did increase their progeny sex ratios in response to competition. Both T richogramma species used host rejection, either by antenna rejection or by ovipositor rejection, as a patch‐leaving mechanism. 4. In agreement with a companion study of direct competition using the same model species, the present results indicate that even amongst closely related species, responses to competition can vary considerably.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".