Egg parasitoid exploitation of plant volatiles induced by single or concurrent attack of a zoophytophagous predator and an invasive phytophagous pest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Zoophytophagous insect predators can induce physiological responses in plants by activating defence signalling pathways, but whether plants can respond to facultative phytophagy by recruiting natural enemies remains to be investigated. In Y-tube olfactometer bioassays, using a system including a Vicia faba plant, the zoophytophagous predator Podisus maculiventris and the egg parasitoid Telenomus podisi, we first demonstrated that T. podisi females are attracted by broad bean plants damaged by feeding activity of P. maculiventris and on which host egg masses had been laid, while they are not attracted by undamaged plants or plants damaged by feeding activity alone. In a second experiment, we evaluated the impact of the invasive phytophagous pest Halyomorpha halys on this plant volatile-mediated tritrophic communication. Results showed that the invasive herbivorous adults do not induce plants to recruit the native egg parasitoid, but they can disrupt the local infochemical network. In fact, T. podisi females are not attracted by volatiles emitted by plants damaged by H. halys feeding alone or combined with oviposition activity, nor are they attracted by plants concurrently infested by P. maculiventris and H. halys, indicating the specificity in the parasitoid response and the ability of the invasive herbivore in interrupting the semiochemical communication between plants and native egg parasitoids. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study showing that zoophytophagous predator attacks induce indirect plant defences similarly to those defence strategies adopted by plants as a consequence of single or concurrent infestations of herbivorous insects.
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) | 0.001 | 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".