Impact of Host Plant Connectivity, Crop Border and Patch Size on Adult Colorado Potato Beetle Retention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tagged Colorado potato beetles (CPB), Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say), were released on potato plants, Solanum tuberosum L., and tracked using a portable harmonic radar system to determine the impact of host plant spatial distribution on the tendency of the pest to remain on the colonized host plant or patch. Results confirmed the long residency time on the host plant and showed that close connection of the plant to neighboring plants hastened dispersal between plants. Tracking walking CPB for over 6 h in small potato plots revealed that all types of mixed borders tested (potato/bare ground, potato/timothy and potato/woodland) acted as a strong barrier and retained beetles within the patch. In another experiment in potato patches surrounded by bare ground borders, tracked walking CPB displayed similar behaviour for up to four days. The distribution of turning angles in the CPB walking paths was not uniform and corresponded to beetles following the edge rows of potato patches in response to the crop border barrier or reversing their direction as they reached the end of a row and therefore a border. Patch size had no or little effect on beetle retention in the patch. The relative distribution of counts of tagged beetles detected among small (16 m2), medium (64 m2) and large size (256 m2) patches of potato four days after initial release remained similar to that of numbers released. Even though mixed crop borders were a strong barrier to walking CPB emigrating from potato patches, the departure rate of beetles over time was high. Results suggest that the effect of mixed borders is largely limited to dispersal by walking and does not apply to beetles leaving host patches by flight. The manipulation of crop borders and patch size seem to have limited potential for the management of CPB emigrating from potato fields.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".