Mechanism and consequences for avoidance of superparasitism in the solitary parasitoid Cotesia vestalis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A parasitoid's decision to reject or accept a potential host is fundamental to its fitness. Superparasitism, in which more than one egg of a given parasitoid species can deposit in a single host, is usually considered sub-optimal in systems where the host is able to support the development of only a single parasitoid. It follows that selection pressure may drive the capacity for parasitoids to recognize parasitized hosts, especially if there is a fitness cost of superparasitism. Here, we used microsatellite studies of two distinct populations of Cotesia vestalis to demonstrate that an egg laid into a diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella) larva that was parasitized by a conspecific parasitoid 10 min, 2 or 6 h previously was as likely to develop and emerge successfully as was the first-laid egg. Consistent with this, a naive parasitoid encountering its first host was equally likely to accept a healthy larva as one parasitized 10 min prior, though handling time of parasitized hosts was extended. For second and third host encounters, parasitized hosts were less readily accepted than healthy larvae. If 12 h elapsed between parasitism events, the second-laid egg was much less likely to develop. Discrimination between parasitized and healthy hosts was evident when females were allowed physical contact with hosts, and healthy hosts were rendered less acceptable by manual injection of parasitoid venom into their hemolymph. Collectively, these results show a limited capacity to discriminate parasitized from healthy larvae despite a viability cost associated with failing to avoid superparasitism.
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".