Success of aphid parasitoids and their hosts varies with ant attendance: A field study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aphid–ant associations are often described as mutually beneficial interactions in which honeydew is traded for protection from predators and parasitoids. The aim of the present study was to determine parasitization avoidance in ant‐tended aphid colonies. Field experiments were carried out on two host plants: hoary cress Lepidium draba (Brassicaceae) and Canadian teasel Cirsium arvense (Asteraceae). Lepidium was host to Acyrthosiphon gossypii (Aphididae) tended by the ant Lasius turcicus (Formicidae) and attacked by two parasitoids, Trioxys asiaticus (Braconidae) and Lysiphlebus fabarum (Braconidae). Cirsium was host to Brachycaudus cardui tended by Crematogaster sordidula and attacked by L. fabarum and Aphidius colemani (Braconidae). The per capita population growth rate of A. gossypii was significantly higher in the presence of ants, while B. cardui was negatively affected, albeit non‐significantly. The parasitism rate of A. gossypii decreased significantly when tended by Lasius turcicus, but the presence of Crematogaster sordidula in colonies of B. cardui significantly increased parasitism. Our results indicate that the effects of ant attendance vary between different aphid–ant interactions. Moreover, parasitoids can benefit from the presence of ants under some conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".