The importance of parent host status for hybrid susceptibility to herbivores: A test with two hybrid lines of willows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We tested how the status of the parent taxa, host or non-host, influences the resistance of F1 hybrids to herbivores. To do this we used two different hybrid lines. Hand pollination was used to produce pure individuals and F1 hybrids between Salix caprea and S. repens, and S. caprea and S. aurita. Leaves from these individuals were presented to adults of two chrysomelid species, Lochmaea caprea and Crepidodera fulvicornis, in multiple-choice preference tests. Lochmaea caprea showed an additive response: its level of grazing of the F1 hybrids of S. caprea (host) and S. repens (non-host) was mid-way between that of the parent species. This was consistent with the inheritance pattern of condensed tannins in hybrids. This suggests an additive inheritance of resistant traits and a linear (dose dependent) response by the herbivore. When both parent taxa (S. caprea and S. aurita) were hosts, L. caprea utilization did not differ between any of the plant categories (F1 hybrids and parents). Crepidodera fulvicornis exhibited a dominant response towards the susceptible parent for the S. caprea ¥ S. repens crosses and a dominant response towards the resistant parent for S. caprea ¥ S. aurita crosses. This indicates that C. fulvicornis might respond to changes in resistant trait at specific thresholds. Our results suggest that different herbivores, even those with a similar host plants range, differ in their response to hybrids. One way to gain knowledge of the proximate and ultimate explanations for these differences could be to compare the response of different herbivores to different distinct hybrid lines.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".