Host egg pigmentation protects developing parasitoids from ultraviolet radiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parasites rely on their hosts not only for nutrition and reproduction, but also for protection against natural enemies and adverse climatic conditions. In host‐parasite interactions, protective characteristics of both players are important to consider regarding damaging effects of environmental hazards. While ultraviolet radiation (UVR) is pervasive and harmful to organisms in general, its impact on parasite fitness remains understudied. Moreover, studies that do examine the effects of UV exposure on parasitic organisms tend to neglect host traits, which may vary inter‐ or intra‐specifically and thus confer different levels of environmental protection. We examined in the laboratory whether the UV‐protective value of host egg pigmentation could also benefit parasitoids, using the egg parasitoid Telenomus podisi and the predatory stink bug Podisus maculiventris . This host species lays eggs of variable pigmentation levels from light to dark grey, an adaptation protecting its own embryos from UVR. We showed that higher levels of host egg pigmentation protect parasitoids subjected to a developmental exposure to UVR, increasing emergence rates by up to 86% and reducing development time by up to 4%. This protective effect of host pigmentation was context‐dependent, being less pronounced at low UVR intensity and towards the end of parasitoid development. Parasitoids that emerged from darker‐coloured eggs exposed to UVR were of slightly larger size than those developing in light‐coloured eggs, but other fitness‐related traits (fecundity, longevity, sex ratio) were unaffected. This study provides the first experimental evidence that host pigmentation can increase host suitability for parasitic organisms, and emphasizes the importance of considering trait variation in interacting species when investigating the susceptibility of ecological communities to important abiotic environmental factors.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".