Friend or Foe: Symbiotic Bacteria in Bactrocera dorsalis–Parasitoid Associations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parasitoids are promising biocontrol agents of the devastating fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis. However, parasitoid performance is a function of several factors, including host-associated symbiotic bacteria. Providencia alcalifaciens, Citrobacter freundii, and Lactococcus lactis are among the symbiotic bacteria commonly associated with B. dorsalis, and they influence the eco-physiological functioning of this pest. However, whether these bacteria influence the interaction between this pest and its parasitoids is unknown. This study sought to elucidate the nature of the interaction of the parasitoids, Fopius arisanus, Diachasmimorpha longicaudata, and Psyttlia cosyrae with B. dorsalis as mediated by symbiotic bacteria. Three types of fly lines were used: axenic, symbiotic, and bacteria-mono-associated (Lactococcus lactis, Providencia alcalifaciens, and Citrobacter freundii). The suitable stages of each fly line were exposed to the respective parasitoid species and reared until the emergence of adult flies/parasitoids. Thereafter, data on the emergence and parasitoid fitness traits were recorded. No wasps emerged from the fly lines exposed to P. cosyrae. The highest emergence of F. arisanus and D. longicaudata was recorded in the L. lactis fly lines. The parasitoid progeny from the L. lactis and P. alcalifaciens fly lines had the longest developmental time and the largest body size. Conversely, parasitoid fecundity was significantly lower in the L. lactis lines, whereas the P. alcalifaciens lines significantly improved fecundity. These results elucidate some effects of bacterial symbionts on host–parasitoid interactions and their potential in enhancing parasitoid-oriented management strategies against B. dorsalis.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".