MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283265772 · doi:10.1002/eap.2697

Native generalist natural enemies and an introduced specialist parasitoid together control an invasive forest insect

2022· article· en· W4283265772 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hannah J. Broadley, George H. Boettner, Brenda Schneider, Joseph S. Elkinton

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Applications · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAnimal and Plant Health Inspection ServiceU.S. Forest Service
KeywordsGeneralist and specialist speciesBiologyPredationPupaParasitoidBiological pest controlEcologyPredatorPopulationZoologyLarvaHabitatDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Specialized natural enemies have long been used to implement the biological control of invasive insects. Although research tracking populations following biological control introductions has traditionally focused on the impact of the introduced agent, recent studies and reviews have reflected an appreciation of the complex interactions of the introduced specialist agents with native generalist natural enemies. These interactions can be neutral, antagonistic, or complementary. Here we studied the invasive defoliator winter moth ( Operophtera brumata ) in the Northeast USA to investigate the role of native, generalist pupal predators along with the introduced, host‐specific parasitoid Cyzenis albicans . Prior research in Canada has shown that predation of winter moth pupae from native generalists increased after C. albicans was established as a biological control agent. To explain this phenomenon, the following hypotheses were suggested: (H 1 ) parasitoids suppress the winter moth population to a density that can be maintained by generalist predators, (H 2 ) unparasitized pupae are preferred by predators and therefore experience higher mortality rates, or (H 3 ) C. albicans sustains higher predator populations throughout the year more effectively than winter moth alone. We tested these hypotheses by deploying winter moth pupae over 6 years spanning 2005 to 2017 and by modeling pupal predation rates as a function of winter moth density and C. albicans establishment. We also compared predation rates of unparasitized and parasitized pupae and considered additional mortality by a native pupal parasitoid. We found support for the first hypothesis; we detected both temporal and spatial density dependence, but only in the latter years of the study when winter moth densities were low. We found no evidence for the latter two hypotheses. Our findings suggest that pupal predators have a regulatory effect on winter moth populations only after populations have been reduced, presumably by the introduction of the host‐specific parasitoid C. albicans .

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.374
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.233 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcological ApplicationsSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207