Glucosinolate profile and oviposition behavior in relation to the susceptibilities of Brassicaceae to the cabbage seedpod weevil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Understanding how host‐plant characteristics affect behavioral and physiological responses of insect herbivores is of considerable importance in the development of resistant crop germplasm. Feeding, oviposition preference, larval development, and oviposition behavior of the cabbage seedpod weevil, Ceutorhynchus obstrictus (Marsham) (= Ceutorhynchus assimilis Payk.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), were investigated on eight Brassicaceae species that differed in their glucosinolate profiles. The least preferred host plants for feeding and oviposition were the Sinapis alba L. lines while the Brassica carinata L. line was most preferred. Larval development occurred most rapidly on Brassica rapa L. and slowest on S. alba. Larval weight was highest on B. napus L. and lowest on S. alba. Total glucosinolate levels did not influence C. obstrictus larval growth or development; however high levels of specific glucosinolates such as p‐hydroxybenzyl and 3‐butenyl glucosinolate were associated with increased developmental time or reduced weight. The time required for oviposition behavioral events was measured on different host‐plant species: B. rapa, B. napus, B. napus×S. alba, B. tournefortii Gouan., B. juncea (L.) Czern, B. carinata, B. nigra (L.) Koch., and S. alba. The early steps in the sequence were completed faster on more susceptible host plants (B. carinata, B. napus, and B. rapa) than on relatively resistant ones (B. tournefortii and B. juncea). Females explored pods of B. nigra and S. alba, but oviposition occurred only rarely on these species. There was no significant difference in the location on the pod on which oviposition occurred among the different plant species. Mean eggs laid per female weevil were highest on the B. napus×S. alba hybrid and lowest on B. nigra and S. alba.
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 | 0.001 | 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".