ArticleDie Naturwissenschaften2021
Some sawfly larvae survive predator-prey interactions with pentatomid Picromerus bidens.
Article in Die Naturwissenschaften, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Behavior and body size modulate the defense of toxin-containing sawfly larvae against ants.Scientific reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Most Asopinae stinkbugs (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) prey on other insects, including sawfly larvae (Hymenoptera: Symphyta). Sawfly larvae of the Argidae and Pergidae contain toxic peptides, but whether they are defended against stinkbugs remains poorly studied. A literature survey indicates that no publication is devoted to laboratory tests specifically using these sawflies against stinkbugs. Here, laboratory bioassays were made with the stinkbug Picromerus bidens and four sawfly species at last larval instars: Arge ochropus (Argidae), Arge pagana (also tested at medium instars), Lophyrotoma zonalis (Pergidae), and Allantus rufocinctus (Tenthredinidae). Following 24 h of possible predator-prey interactions, no larvae of A. rufocinctus survived, whereas most or all larvae of the other sawfly species did survive and were still alive 48 h later. When feeding on an argid or pergid larva, the feeding periods lasted on average 6-20 s only, some bugs removing their rostrum and abruptly backing away. Full-grown larvae of A. pagana were attacked less than younger ones. It is likely that the tested Argidae and Pergidae are well defended against P. bidens by potent, internal antifeedants, while defensive body movements combined with a large body size play a secondary role.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.