Coexistence of zoophytophagous and phytozoophagous strategies linked to genotypic diet specialization in plant bug
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Zoophytophagous predators can substitute zoophagy for phytophagy to complete their development and reproduction. In such predators, variation in feeding behaviour is observed both across and within populations. This may be caused by genetic variation in diet specialization, some genotypes specializing on plant resources, whereas others rely mostly on prey to meet their energy and nutriment requirements. We tested the hypothesis that genotypes specialize either on prey or plant resources in the zoophytophagous mullein bug Campylomma verbasci. In the laboratory, we reared 11 isogroup lines of the mullein bug and recorded feeding behaviour on two diets. The first diet was composed of two-spotted spider mites and leaves, and in the second we added pollen, a high-quality vegetal resource. Overall differences in zoophagy among isogroup lines remained consistent regardless of the presence or absence of pollen. While some lines were insensitive to changes in trophic resource composition others switched from prey to pollen feeding when the pollen was available, revealing a negative genetic correlation between the probabilities of feeding on both resources. A significant line by diet interaction in the proportion of time spent feeding on prey in presence or absence of pollen indicated a genetic basis for diet preference. In absence of the preferred resource, nymphs act as generalists, but exhibited individual diet specialisation when facing the choice between high-quality animal and vegetal resources. Results suggest that zoophytophagous predators can exhibit genetic variation in diet preference, which can generate important ecological and economic differences in natural or agricultural systems.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".