Interactions between host plant quality and non‐consumptive predator effects on oviposition and larval behaviour of <i>Plutella xylostella</i> (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The presence of predators can induce non‐consumptive effects on prey that result in subsequent changes to prey behaviour and defence. We investigate the interaction between top‐down non‐consumptive effects of various stages of the predator Coccinella septempunctata L.(Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) (larvae and adult) and bottom‐up effects of host nutrition on Plutella xylostella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) oviposition and larval host choice. We also compare the effect of presence of intact predators, predators without mandibles, confined predators and a no predator control treatment on P. xylostella larval growth, survival and herbivory. Host plant nutrition influenced the host choice of adult female P. xylostella ; no interaction was observed between bottom‐up host plant nutrition and the presence of C. septempunctata adults or larvae on oviposition or larval host choice by P. xylostella . Predator presence impacted larval feeding and weight gain. The presence of free‐moving C. septempunctata adults without mandibles that could not predate P. xylostella reduced mean leaf consumption by P. xylostella larvae to 1.88 ± 0.21 cm 2 and reduced weight gain to 2.12 ± 0.16 mg. Despite differences in leaf damage and larval weight gain, survival remained consistent across the non‐consumptive treatments. Intact C. septempunctata larvae reduced leaf damage and subsequent P. xylostella larval weight gain. The presence of larval predators across the non‐consumptive treatments, however, had no effect on feeding damage or weight gain. Results of our investigation indicate that C. septempunctata causes some non‐consumptive effects on P. xylostella that depend on predator life stage, level of confinement and prey life stage. It is likely that P. xylostella responds to multi‐modal cues in predator detection.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".