MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1506719597 · doi:10.7275/3588892

Interactions Between Pieris oleracea and Pieris rapae (Lepidoptera: Pieridae) Butterflies, and the Biological Control Agents Cotesia glomerata and Cotesia rubecula (Hymenoptera: Braconidae).

2023· article· en· W1506719597 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Megan V. Herlihy

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarworks (University of Massachusetts Amherst) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBiological Control of Invasive Species
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPieris rapaePieridaeBraconidaeLepidoptera genitaliaBiologyBiological pest controlBotanyParasitoid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pieris oleracea, formerly Pieris napi, was once a widespread pierid butterfly in New England until the introduction of a biological control agent, Cotesia glomerata. It has been suggested that C. glomerata is responsible for the range reduction of P. oleracea. There are been several introductions of a second more specialized biological control agent, Cotesia rubecula, to the United States since the 1960’s. My first goal was to determine the current distribution and status of P. rapae parasitoids and the effectiveness of C. rubecula as a biological control agent since its release. The findings of a survey I conducted of the parasitoid community of P. rapae indicate that C. rubecula now occurs as far west as North Dakota and has become the dominant parasitoid of P. rapae in the northeastern and north central United States and adjacent parts of southeastern Canada, where it has displaced , the previously dominant parasitoid.\nSurvival of artificially established cohorts of P. rapae larvae was assessed in a collard patch on an organic vegetable farm in western Massachusetts. There was a significant drop in larval survival between the 4th and 5th instar due to parasitism by C. rubecula. This was change from survival curves of P. rapae from a 1985-1986 study, in which there was a significant drop in survival between the 5th instar and pupal stage due to C. glomerata.\nThe final goal of my thesis work is to try to understand why P. oleracea was able to survive at the focal study site in Lenox, MA despite parasitoid pressure and range reduction elsewhere in New England. In olfactometer tests, there was no difference in attractiveness of naïve C. glomerata females to volatiles of either Cardamine pratensis (cuckooflower) foliage, the host plant of P. oleracea or Brassica olercea (collard) foliage (P = 0.51). In order to determine if overtopping by other vegetation may provide an enemy free space for P. oleracea by affecting detection by C. glomerata, cage experiments were conducted. Overtopping vegetation had a significant effect on parasitism by C. glomerata (F = 12.8, df = 3, P <0.001), and may be the reason P. oleracea has been able to thrive at the Lenox, MA site.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.180 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarworks (University of Massachusetts Amherst)Same topicBiological Control of Invasive SpeciesFrench-language works237,207