Potential novel hosts for the lily leaf beetle <i>Lilioceris lilii</i> Scopoli (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) in eastern North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract 1. Introduced insects often incorporate native plants into their diets and might be expected to show a predilection for novel hosts that are phylogenetically related to their normal hosts. The lily leaf beetle, Lilioceris lilii (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), is an introduced pest of cultivated lilies. Oviposition behaviour, larval behaviour, and development of L. lilii was examined on a range of potential host plants, as well as on the normal host, Asiatic hybrid lilies Lilium sp. 2. Neonate larval feeding behaviour was quantified on 15 food plant species: 10 from the Liliales, three from the Asparagales and two eudicots. Larvae fed plants closely related to the genus Lilium were more likely to initiate feeding, less likely to abandon their food leaf, and consumed more leaf area. 3. In no‐choice tests, females oviposited on the novel hosts Lilium philadelphicum , Medeola virginiana , Clintonia borealis , Streptopus amplexifolius , and Polygonatum biflorum ; however, all but L. philadelphicum received very few eggs. Non‐ Lilium novel hosts were not used for oviposition when presented along with Asiatic lilies in choice tests. 4. A single individual was reared to the adult stage on the novel host S. amplexifolius . Several larvae survived to the pupal stage on M. virginiana , although no adults emerged from those pupae. Larvae reared on the native wood lily L. philadelphicum performed equally well or better than on the Asiatic cultivar. 5. Our results indicate that the lily leaf beetle poses a threat to native Liliaceae. Several native Lilium species, including L. philadelphicum , are threatened or endangered in certain jurisdictions throughout their range; these species should be monitored closely for colonisation by the beetle.
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 | 0.000 | 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".