Contrasting Phenotypic Variability of Life-History Traits of Two Feral Populations of Macrolophus pygmaeus (Hemiptera: Miridae) under Two Alternative Diets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tuta absoluta is a major pest attacking tomato crops. This invasive species emerged in Europe (Spain) in 2006, and 3 years later it spread to Portugal. In 2009/2010, it was recorded for the first time in the Azores archipelago. Macrolophus pygmaeus is a predator widely used as biological control agent against the tomato leaf miner. This study contrasted the life-history traits and population growth parameters of two feral populations of M. pygmaeus, one from Portugal mainland and one from the Azores archipelago. The predators were tested on single prey diet, either of Ephestia kuehniella eggs, a factitious prey used for mass rearing of mirids, or T. absoluta eggs. We predicted that populations would express differences in its phenotypic characteristics, with the Azorean population displaying low performance due to likely low genetic diversity, as expected for insular populations. Our results revealed the inexistence of phenotypic differences in several life history traits, such as immature developmental time, female longevity, males’ body weight and sex ratio. Contrary to our predictions, traits with direct impact on fitness, such as lifetime fertility (95.78 ± 14.23 vs. 61.38 ± 13.52 nymphs), explain better performances for the population of the Azores. Azorean M. pygmaeus females were larger, matured earlier and reproduced at a higher rate for longer periods, than mainland females. Therefore, population growth parameters show a positive advantage for the population of the Azores, fed on T. absoluta (time required for doubling the population Azores, Ek: 8.42 ± 0.50, Ta: 5.76 ± 0.31 and mainland, Ek: 10.88 ± 1.94, Ta: 12.07 ± 3.15). Biological performance of M. pygmaeus was similar when fed with T. absoluta or E. kuehniella that could be beneficial both to optimize mass production of the predator and biological control of the pest. Our results are discussed as well in a fundamental perspective, seeking if differences in biological performance can be explained by lower genetic diversity driven by geographic isolation.
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".