Can competition be superior to parasitism for biological control? The case of spotted wing Drosophila (<i>Drosophila suzukii</i>), <i>Drosophila melanogaster</i> and <i>Pachycrepoideus vindemmiae</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drosophila suzukii and Drosophila melanogaster coexist with different but overlapping resource use in the field. When forced to completely or partially share resources in the laboratory, D. melanogaster outcompetes D. suzukii. Adult D. suzukii and D. melanogaster females were allowed to compete for access to a common oviposition resource in pairwise and population scale experiments. We tracked the offspring emergence to explore the factors across life stages that might affect the success of D. suzukii in the laboratory compared to a closed field simulation cage experiment with a generalist Drosophila parasitoid, Pachycrepoideous vindemmiae. When in competition as adults, D. melanogaster produced more offspring that survived to pupation than D. suzukii. In addition, D. melanogaster produced more offspring when in competition with a conspecific than when in competition with D. suzukii. Competitor identity did not affect the number of D. melanogaster offspring in pairwise and cage experiments. However, in the presence of D. melanogaster, the number of D. suzukii offspring in both pairwise and cage experiments was dramatically reduced than in cages without this competitor. In the presence of both D. melanogaster and P. vindemmiae, there were marginally more D. suzukii than when only D. melanogaster was present. These results suggest that competition was an important factor limiting D. suzukii numbers. Limiting D. suzukii numbers through interspecies competition may eventually be an exploitable method of biocontrol in the field.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".