MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A large‐scale comparison of conventional and molecular methods for the evaluation of host–parasitoid associations in non‐target risk‐assessment studies

2008· article· en· W1983110074 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Ecology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsParasitoidBiologyParasitismHost (biology)Biological pest controlLygusEcologyZoologyMiridae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Accurate identification of natural enemies is the cornerstone of biological control, and methods that can separate closely related species are essential in ecological studies of parasitoids. Conventionally, host rearing and dissection are used to define the ecological host range of candidate biological control agents and assess host‐specificity of parasitoids. However, molecular methods may be more suitable for the evaluation of host–parasitoid associations. To demonstrate the utility of molecular diagnostics in ecological host‐range studies on parasitoids of Lygus plant bugs, host rearing, dissection and multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis were used to estimate parasitism levels and parasitoid species composition (genus Peristenus ) in more than 26 000 field‐collected target and non‐target Miridae. Parasitism levels estimated by conventional and molecular methods were similar but molecular analysis can detect parasitoids earlier than dissection and rearing. Parasitoid pupal mortality prevented the identification of more than 30% of individuals reared from non‐target host material; however, paired samples analysed with the multiplex assay allowed the identity of these parasitoids to be inferred. Molecular methods can provide different, and generally more complete, parasitoid species composition information because the results are not confounded by the host and parasitoid mortality encountered in rearing. However, detection of a parasitoid in a host does not necessarily indicate survival to the adult stage. Further, molecular identification of parasitoid species may be restricted to those species for which PCR primers are available. Synthesis and applications . For molecular diagnostic techniques to gain widespread adoption in ecological studies on natural enemy host range, they must provide information that is equivalent (or superior) to information obtained by conventional methods. Based on a large‐scale case study, associations between Peristenus spp. and their mirid hosts were used to demonstrate the utility of molecular diagnostics in studies on parasitoid ecological host range; however, this approach can be extended to pre‐release risk‐assessment studies on other candidate biological control agents. Beyond agent identification, molecular diagnostics can facilitate and expedite pre‐ and post‐release studies on the ecological host range of parasitoids, potential non‐target effects, host–parasitoid associations and trophic interactions.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.610
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.351 · 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