May furtive predation provide enemy free space in ant-tended aphid colonies?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In furtive predation, a predator is able to exploit its prey without generating significant defensive behaviors from them. However, in aphidophagous guild, if furtive predator can benefit from dilution effects generated by the aphids, they also suffer from intraguild predation from more mobile and active-searching predators. In this context ant-tended aphid colonies might not only represent an important food source but also potentially an enemy-free space for furtive predators if they remain unharmed by ants while other active predators are being repelled. Here we use the furtive predator Aphidoletes aphidimyza and two distinct instars of an active-searching predator, the Asian ladybeetle Harmonia axyridis, to test hypotheses related to predator persistence within aphid colonies in presence of ants. Our results show that persistence rate over time of the furtive predator was not affected by ant presence while it was strongly reduced for both instars of the active-searching predator. Furthermore, when ran in paired trials within ant-tended aphid colonies, furtive predator persistence rate was significantly higher than for active-searching predators, with these latter always leaving the plants quicker. Finally, we tested the importance of predator mobility in detection susceptibility and aggressive responses in ants using mobile and immobile active-searching predators. While the number of antennal palpations was similar for both treatments indicating similar detection rate, the number of ant attacks was significantly higher on mobile individuals highlighting the importance of movement in triggering aggressive responses in ants. Overall our results indicate that furtive predation represents an efficient strategy to limit ant aggressions, while the exclusion of active-searching predators might create an enemy-free space for furtive predators within ant-tended aphid colonies.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".