MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1775028830 · doi:10.1139/x11-035

Estimating the effect of poplar resistance on the performance of the woolly poplar aphid, <i>Phloeomyzus passerinii</i>, in various experimental conditions

2011· article· en· W1775028830 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sophie Pointeau, Aurélien Sallé, Vincent Lesieur, Stéphanie Bankhead‐Dronnet, Matthieu Bonnaffoux, François Lieutier

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCuttingAphidBiologyBotanyWoody plantHorticultureResistance (ecology)Agronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The woolly poplar aphid, Phloeomyzus passerinii (Signoret) (Sternorrhyncha: Aphididae), causes the most damage to poplars in southern Europe and the Near East as outbreaks can lead to massive mortality in mature stands. Previous studies, conducted on poplar cuttings or young trees, showed that resistance varied depending on the poplar genotype. However, these results did not indicate how aphid populations were affected by tree resistance and were only partially confirmed by field observations. This study investigated the effect on aphid settlement and performance of poplar genotypes belonging to Populus × canadensis Moench, Populus × interamericana Brockh., Populus nigra L., Populus deltoides Bartram ex Marshall, and Populus trichocarpa Torr. & A. Gray ex Hook. using a single aphid clone. The study was conducted under three experimental conditions: (i) unrooted cuttings, (ii) potted cuttings, and (iii) mature trees. The aphid settlement rate, the larval development rate, and the fecundity were affected by the poplar genotype, highlighting the antixenotic and antibiotic properties involved in tree resistance to P. passerinii. The laboratory results for aphid performance and settlement rate on unrooted cuttings were transposable to both potted cuttings and mature trees. Laboratory studies could, therefore, provide useful information for identifying the parameters involved in resistance mechanisms.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations10
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control→French-language works237,207→