Host suitability of Trichoplusia ni and Chrysodeixis chalcites (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) for native and nonnative parasitoids expanding their host range
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dataset contains the digitized treatments in Plazi based on the original journal article Pacheco, Henry Murillo, Vanlaerhoven, Sherah, Garcia, M. Angeles Marcos (2021): Host suitability of Trichoplusia ni and Chrysodeixis chalcites (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) for native and nonnative parasitoids expanding their host range. The Canadian Entomologist 153 (2): 137-149, DOI: 10.4039/tce.2020.60, URL: https://doi.org/10.4039/tce.2020.60AbstractWe evaluated the host suitability and related traits of Trichoplusia ni Hübner (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and Chrysodeixis chalcites Esper (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), which is nonnative in North America, for the native parasitoids Campoletis sonorensis Cameron (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae) and Copidosoma floridanum Ashmead (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae), and the nonnative parasitoid Cotesia vanessae Reinhard (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). For the larval parasitoid C. sonorensis and C. vanessae trials, three-day-old larvae of both hosts were used, whereas one-day-old eggs of both hosts were used for the egg–larval parasitoid C. floridanum trial. For suitability parameters on each host exposed separately to each of the three parasitoid species, we measured parasitoid emergence (parasitoid success), parasitoids that did not emerge (parasitoid cocoon mortality), the proportion of male offspring (parasitoid sex ratio), hosts that developed into moths (host success), hosts that died without developing into moths or producing a parasitoid (host mortality), parasitoids emerging from cocoon masses (brood size), and the developmental times of parasitoids and hosts. For C. sonorensis, the native host and the nonnative host were found to be similarly suitable. For C. vanessae, the native host was more suitable than the nonnative host. For C. floridanum, the native host was suitable, whereas the nonnative host was not; however, sublethal effects on both the native and nonnative hosts were observed. The differential suitability of the hosts observed in this study contributes to the understanding of this measure as a dynamic factor in the expansion of parasitoids into novel host species.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.013 | 0.005 |
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".