MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394822787 · doi:10.1139/cjz-2023-0190

Mating disruption alters the rate of development in an aphidophagous ladybird <i>Propylea dissecta</i> (Mulsant)

2024· article· en· W4394822787 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
D. C. Gupta, Geetanjali Mishra

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyCoccinellidaeMatingOffspringAphis craccivoraZoologyHuman fertilizationPredationEcologyBotanyAphididaePEST analysisPredatorAgronomyPregnancyGeneticsHomoptera

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ladybird beetles like many other organisms show developmental rate polymorphism in response to various abiotic and biotic factors. Since mating disruption acts as a stressor, we decided to study its impact on the occurrence of developmental rate polymorphs in ladybird beetle, Propylea dissecta Mulsant, 1850 (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Ten-day-old females were subjected to mating disruptions at 120, 180 min, and complete mating (211 ± 8.1 min) and then provided with optimum diet of Aphis craccivora Koch. Larvae in each treatment were reared individually and newly emerged adults were assessed on the basis of their developmental durations. They were separated into two lines: slow and fast developers. Extended mating duration was found to be correlated to increased immature survival and reduced offspring development times. Also, in complete mating treatment, percentage of fast developers were more in numbers; thus, mating duration increased the availability of sperm for females and seminal fluid may have boosted maternal protein reserves, which can then be used to produce offspring of better quality. Mating disruption might be a factor reducing the chances of fertilization success and offspring development in P. dissecta.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.222
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicInsect-Plant Interactions and ControlFrench-language works237,207