MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3185527560 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0254750

The effect of temperature on host patch exploitation by an egg parasitoid

2021· article· en· W3185527560 on OpenAlexafffund
Julie Augustin, Guy Boivin, Gaétan Bourgeois, Jacques Brodeur

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsParasitoidHost (biology)BiologyEcologyZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of temperature during host patch exploitation by parasitoids remains poorly understood, despite its importance on female reproductive success. Under laboratory conditions, we explored the behaviour of Anaphes listronoti, an egg parasitoid of the carrot weevil, Listronotus oregonensis, when foraging on a host patch at five temperatures. Temperature had a strong effect on the female tendency to exploit the patch: A. listronoti females parasitized more eggs at intermediate temperature (20 to 30°C) compared to those foraging at the extreme of the range (15.9°C and 32.8°C). However, there was no difference in offspring sex-ratio and clutch size between temperature treatments. Mechanisms of host acceptance within a patch differed between temperatures, especially at 32.8°C where females used ovipositor insertion rather than antennal contact to assess whether a host was already parasitized or not, suggesting that host handling and chemical cues detection were probably constrained at high temperature. Females spent less time on the host patch with increasing temperatures, but temperature had no effect on patch-leaving rules. Our results show that foraging A. listronoti females behave better than expected at sub-optimal temperatures, but worse than expected at supra-optimal temperatures. This could impair parasitoid performance under ongoing climate change.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicInsect-Plant Interactions and ControlFrench-language works237,207