Isogroup Selection to Optimize Biocontrol Increases Cannibalism in Omnivorous (Zoophytophagous) Bugs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Zoophytophagous insects can substitute animals for plant resources when prey is scarce. Many arthropods feed on conspecifics to survive in these conditions. An individual's tendency for cannibalism may depend on its genotype along with its diet specialization, in interaction with the availability of alternative food resources. We compared two isogroup lines of the zoophytophagous mullein bug, either specialized on animal or on plant diets, that were generated to improve biocontrol. We predicted that: (1) bugs from the prey-specialized line would show higher levels of cannibalism than bugs from the pollen-specialized line, and (2) both lines would decrease cannibalism levels in the presence of their preferred resource. Under laboratory conditions, large nymphal instars had 24 hours to feed on smaller instars, in the absence of additional resources, or with either spider mites or pollen present. Cannibalism was reduced by the availability of both prey and pollen, although prey had a lower effect than pollen. The intensity of cannibalism was always higher in the prey-specialized line than in the pollen-specialized line, regardless of the availability of supplemented resources. The pollen-specialized line had decreased cannibalism levels only when pollen was available. These results indicate that cannibalism is a potentially regulating force in the prey-specialized line, but not in the pollen-specialized line.
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) | 0.001 | 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".