Can hyperparasitoids cause large‐scale outbreaks of insect herbivores?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Synchronous population fluctuations occur in many species and have large economic impacts, but remain poorly understood. Dispersal, climate and natural enemies have been hypothesized to cause synchronous population fluctuations across large areas. For example, insect herbivores cause extensive forest defoliation and have many natural enemies, such as parasitoids, that may cause landscape‐scale changes in density. Between outbreaks, parasitoid‐caused mortality of hosts/herbivores is high, but it drops substantially during outbreak episodes. Because of their essential role in regulating herbivore populations, we need to include parasitoids in spatial modelling approaches to more effectively manage insect defoliation. However, classic host‐parasitoid population models predict parasitoid density, and parasitoid density is difficult to relate to host‐level observations of parasitoid‐caused mortality. We constructed a novel model to study how parasitoids affect insect outbreaks at the landscape scale. The model represents metacommunity dynamics, in which herbivore regulation, colonisation and extinction are driven by interactions with the forest, primary parasitoids and hyperparasitoids. The model suggests that parasitoid spatial dynamics can produce landscape‐scale outbreaks. Our results propose the testable prediction that hyperparasitoid prevalence should increase just before the onset of an outbreak because of hyperparasitoid overexploitation. If verified empirically, hyperparasitoid distribution could provide a biotic indicator that an outbreak will occur.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".