Comparing and contrasting life history variation in four aphid hyperparasitoids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. In primary parasitoids, significant differences in life history and reproductive traits are observed among parasitoids attacking different stages of the same host species. Much less is known about hyperparasitoids, which attack different stages of primary parasitoids. 2. Parasitoids exploit hosts in two different ways. Koinobionts attack hosts that continue feeding and growing during parasitism, whereas idiobionts paralyse hosts before oviposition or attack non‐growing host stages, e.g. eggs or pupae. 3. Koino‐/idiobiosis in primary parasitoids are often associated with different expression of life history trade‐offs, e.g. endo‐ versus ectoparasitism, high versus low fecundity and short versus long life span. 4. In the present study, life history parameters of two koinobiont endoparasitic species ( A lloxysta victrix; S yrphophagus aphidivorus ), and two idiobiont ectoparasitic species ( A saphes suspensus; D endrocerus carpenteri ) of aphid hyperparasitoids were compared. These hyperparasitoids attack either the parasitoid larva in the aphid before it is killed and mummified by the primary parasitoid or the parasitoid prepupa or pupa in the dead aphid mummy. 5. There was considerable variation in reproductive success and longevity in the four species. The idiobiont A. suspensus produced the most progeny by far and had the longest lifespan. In contrast, the koinobiont A . victrix had the lowest fecundity. Other developments and life history parameters in the different species were variable. 6. The present results reveal that there was significant overlap in life history and reproductive traits among hyperparasitoid koinobionts and idiobionts, even when attacking the same host species, suggesting that selection for expression of these traits is largely association specific.
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 | 0.001 | 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".