The influence of light environment on host colour preference in a parasitoid wasp
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Visual chromatic cues and contrast effects are widely used by insects in behaviours involving host/prey/mate‐finding and recognition. However, naturally changing light conditions may challenge the visual perception of cues for these organisms. 2. We used the host/parasitoid system Acyrthosiphon pisum / Aphidius ervi to determine if apparent visual preference of the wasp for green over pink host aphids was a visually based choice or a post‐attack mechanism based on host susceptibility depending on anti‐parasitoid symbiotic bacteria. 3. The study tested the ability of the wasp to recognise and attack pea aphid clones expressing variation based on colour and/or symbionts under a broad range of LED‐controlled light environments mimicking natural variations. 4. Results showed that the amount of reflected light of pink morphs was about half that of the green morphs in the cyan‐green components. Both host colours were recognised and attacked under all tested light conditions, even red light (660 nm). The previously reported preference of A. ervi for green pea aphids, was clear only for naive females given a choice between two aphid colours under all light environments, but quickly disappeared. 5. Wasps showed no tendency of avoiding oviposition in clones with defensive symbionts. 6. These findings suggest that variable rates of pea aphid parasitism by A. ervi in fields do not depend on host colour discrimination, but rather on susceptibility variation among aphid clones in allowing larval development after egg‐laying. Further studies should consider deeper investigation of the impact of red lights used in modified light environments in greenhouses and the proportion of host colour morph available.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".