Realised toxicity of plant defences to an insect herbivore depends more on insect dehydration than on energy reserves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Climate effects on plant defences, and subsequently insect herbivores, have received considerable attention. However, climate also directly affects the physiological condition of insects that may influence their ability to combat plant defences. 2. This study tested the effects of body fat and water content on the ability of mountain pine beetles, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins, to tolerate monoterpenes, the primary defences of their host pine trees. To manipulate their physiological condition, we exposed beetles to one of three environmental treatments: cold (4 °C, 30% RH), humid (21 °C, 70% RH) or dry (21 °C, 30% RH). Beetles had the highest fat and water content in the cold treatment, followed by lower fat but the same water content in the humid treatment, and the lowest of both in the dry treatment . Following environmental treatments, beetles were exposed to 0, 312.5 or 625 ppm vapours of monoterpenes (−)‐α‐pinene or ( R )‐(+)‐limonene. 3. Survival during both environmental and monoterpene treatments was highest for the cold treatment, less for the humid treatment, and lowest for the dry treatment. Fat and water content positively predicted survival. In response to increasing monoterpene concentration, survival, body condition and water content, but not fat, declined. 4. These results indicate that water content of insect herbivores was important for the realised toxicity of plant defences, presumably due to the process of excreting detoxified compounds. Energetic costs of detoxification were less evident. Dehydration of insects has not been widely considered in insect–plant interactions, but effects of climate change on humidity may become increasingly important for these interactions.
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".