Artificial lighting affects the predation performance of the Insidiosus flower bug (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae) against the Western flower thrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protected crops like greenhouses and indoor farms using light-emitting diodes (LEDs) allow precise control of light spectrum, intensity, and photoperiod for agronomic purposes. These artificial light conditions also influence insects and arachnids, including predators used in biological control. Despite growing interest, the effects of LEDs on predator behavior and control efficacy remain poorly understood. In microcosm experiments, we studied the locomotion and predation behaviors of the generalist predator Orius insidiosus against thrips (Frankliniella occidentalis) under different light spectra and intensities. We tested narrowband blue, green, and red spectra, 3 blue-red ratios, and a spectrum combining all 3 colors across a light-intensity gradient. Predators attacked prey under all lighting conditions, with 70% of individuals showing predatory behavior during observations. Spectral composition significantly influenced behaviors of interest, while light intensity had negligible effects. Narrowband spectra elicited the highest attack probabilities, but the mixed blue-red spectrum with a higher proportion of red light yielded the highest prey capture rates. The spectrum combining all 3 colors showed intermediate prey capture success. In complex environments with cucumber plants and 24-h artificial light sequences, prey capture probabilities followed similar trends to microcosm experiments. However, thrips survival rates remained similar across all lighting treatments. Our findings suggest that while lighting influences O. insidiosus behavior, this predator remains effective under various conditions, providing a foundation for lighting strategies that balance plant productivity with biological control.
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 | 0.001 | 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".