Food web associations and effect of trophic resources and environmental factors on parasitoids expanding their host range into non‐native hosts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Trophic interactions and environmental conditions determine the structure of food webs and the host expansion of parasitoids into novel insect hosts. In this study, we investigate plant–insect–parasitoid food web interactions, specifically the effect of trophic resources and environmental factors on the presence of the parasitoids expanding their host range after the invasion ofChrysodeixis chalcites(Esper) (Lepidoptera:Noctuidae). We also consider potential candidates for biological control of this non‐native pest. A survey of larval stages ofPlusiinae (Lepidoptera:Noctuidae) and their larval parasitoids was conducted in field and vegetable greenhouse crops in 2009 and 2010 in various locations of Essex and Chatham‐Kent counties inOntario,Canada. Twenty‐one plant–host insect–host parasitoid associations were observed amongTrichoplusia ni(Hübner) (Lepidoptera:Noctuidae),C. chalcites, and larval parasitoids in three trophic levels of interaction.Chrysodeixis chalcites, an old‐world species that had just arrived in the region, was the most common in our samples. The larval parasitoidsCampoletis sonorensis(Cameron) (Hymenoptera:Ichneumonidae),Cotesia vanessae(Reinhard),Cotesiasp.,Microplitis alaskensis(Ashmead), andMeteorus rubens(Nees) (allHymenoptera:Braconidae) expanded their host range intoC. chalciteschanging the structure of the food web.Copidosoma floridanum(Ashmead) (Hymenoptera:Encyrtidae) was the most common parasitoid ofT. nithat was not found in the invasive species. Plant species, host abundance, and agro‐ecosystem were the most common predictors for the presence of the parasitoids expanding their host range intoC. chalcites. Our results indicate thatC. sonorensis,C. vanessae, andC. floridanumshould be evaluated for their potential use in biological control ofC. chalcitesandT. ni.
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".