Phylloplane bacteria increase the negative impact of food limitation on insect fitness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. When populations of herbivorous insects increase in density, they can alter the quantity or quality of their food. The impacts of diet‐related stressors on insect fitness have been investigated singly, but not simultaneously. 2. Foliage quantity and quality of red alder, A lnus rubra, were manipulated together with the presence of non‐entomopathogenic phylloplane bacteria to investigate their impacts, singly and in combination, on survival, pupal mass, growth rate, fecundity and egg quality of a cyclic forest insect, the western tent caterpillar, M alacosoma californicum pluviale . 3. Food limitation (half food) had strong negative impacts on all life‐history traits. When the larvae were fed continuously, however, neither ingesting phylloplane bacteria nor eating leaves from damaged branches (induced foliage) affected survival. In the half‐food treatment, ingesting bacteria further increased mortality, while feeding on induced foliage improved survival. 4. Growth rate and pupal mass of both sexes were reduced for larvae with food limitation compared with continuously fed insects and this was exacerbated when the larvae also ate bacteria‐treated leaves. A combination of bacteria and induced foliage also reduced larval growth rate by 5% in the full‐food treatment. 5. Fecundity (eggs per egg mass) was 2.7 times greater in full‐food than in food‐limited treatments but neither phylloplane bacteria nor plant induction had an effect. Insects fed induced foliage produced smaller eggs. Overall, there was no evidence of a three‐way interaction between the three stressors, although there were negative synergistic effects, primarily between food limitation and the ingestion of phylloplane bacteria.
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) | 0.002 | 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".