Apple and Sugar Feeding in Adult Codling Moths,<i>Cydia pomonella</i>: Effects on Longevity, Fecundity, and Egg Fertility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attraction of adult codling moths, Cydia pomonella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), to sweet baits has been well documented. However, beneficial effects of sugar feeding on moth fitness have not been demonstrated. Longevity, fecundity, and egg fertility were examined for female/male pairs of moths maintained with the following food regimens: water, sucrose water, honey water, apple juice, apple flesh, or starved, i.e., no food or water provided. Longevity and total fecundity were enhanced in all treatments relative to the starved treatment moths. Sucrose water, honey water, and apple juice treatments yielded the highest longevity, but total fecundity was highest for moths maintained on honey water or apple juice. Total egg fertility did not differ among treatments. However, egg fertility declined more gradually over the female lifespan for the three aqueous solution diets of sucrose water, honey water, and apple juice. Similarly, fecundity per day declined more gradually over time for honey water and apple juice treatments. Performance of moths maintained with apple flesh was generally intermediate between that of moths with water and the three aqueous solution treatments. This suggests that moths benefit from feeding on ripe apple flesh, although apple may be more difficult to ingest or its nutrients less concentrated compared to aqueous solutions. The results presented here may explain attraction of adult moths to sweet baits as well as to odors from ripe fruit, which may be a natural source of food in the fall.
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".