The realized host specificity of <i>Leptopilina japonica</i> and <i>Ganaspis kimorum</i> , adventive larval parasitoids of the invasive <i>Drosophila suzukii</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The non-native larval parasitoid wasps Leptopilina japonica and Ganaspis kimorum (Hymenoptera: Figitidae), which attack larvae of the invasive pest Drosophila suzukii (Matsumura) (Diptera: Drosophilidae), were unintentionally introduced to the Pacific Northwest of North America between 10 and 15 years ago, and are now well-established. Previous laboratory studies conducted to assess the ecological risk of classical biological control introductions suggested that G. kimorum is highly host-specific, whereas L. japonica can develop in several other drosophilid species. Information on realized host use of the parasitoids under field conditions in the context of host-parasitoid food webs in their non-native range is limited. A two-year field study in coastal British Columbia, Canada was conducted, using complementary sampling methods to document host-parasitoid associations and quantify parasitoid specificity with respect to drosophilid communities inhabiting ripe and rotting fruit. Consistent with previous laboratory findings, G. kimorum was reared exclusively from D. suzukii , while L. japonica emerged primarily from D. suzukii but also from D. melanogaster and, less frequently, from members of the D. obscura species group. Leptopilina japonica shared some host species with the resident parasitoid species L. heterotoma and Asobara cf. rufescens . A particularly striking result was the extent to which almost all drosophilid and parasitoid taxa in this study’s host-parasitoid trophic webs were non-native, complicating the interpretation of ‘non-target’ ecological effects of L. japonica . These results provide field-based evidence of realized host use by these two non-native larval parasitoids of D. suzukii that can inform their future use in classical and augmentative biological control programs.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".