Data from: Nutritional geometry and fitness consequences in Drosophila suzukii, the Spotted-Wing Drosophila
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since its arrival to North America less than a decade ago, the invasive Spotted-Wing Drosophila (Drosophila suzukii) has inflicted substantial economic losses on soft fruit agriculture due to its ability to oviposit into ripening fruits. More effective management approaches for this species are needed, but little is known about the factors that influence behavioral choices made by D. suzukii when selecting hosts, or the consequences that their offspring experience when developing in different environments. Using a nutritional geometry methodology, we found that the ratio of proteins-to-carbohydrates (P:C) present in media greatly influenced adult D. suzukii behavior and subsequent offspring development. Whereas adult flies showed a strong bias in their oviposition and association behaviors toward carbohydrate-rich foods, larval survival and eclosion rate were strongly dependent on protein availability. Here, we explore the preference–performance hypothesis (PPH), in which females are predicted to oviposit on medias that provide the greatest offspring benefits, in regard to its relevance in D. suzukii behavior and consequences for management. Our results provide valuable insight into the ecology and evolution of this species that may hopefully lead to more effective management strategies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.021 |
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".