MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030955912 · doi:10.1079/ber2004291

An interspersed refuge for <i>Sitodiplosis mosellana</i> (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) and a biocontrol agent <i>Macroglenes penetrans</i> (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) to manage crop resistance in wheat

2004· article· en· W2030955912 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

VenueBulletin of Entomological Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaWestern Grains Research Foundation
KeywordsBiologyMidgePteromalidaeCecidomyiidaeAgronomyBiological pest controlCropParasitoidParasitismLarvaHost (biology)BotanyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An interspersed refuge of susceptible plants in a resistant, spring-sown wheat crop was tested as a strategy to protect crop resistance against evolution of virulence by the wheat midge Sitodiplosis mosellana (Géhin), and also to conserve a biocontrol agent Macroglenes penetrans(Kirby). Eight replicated field experiments were conducted using seed mixtures of 0, 5, 10, 15 and 100% or 0, 5 and 100% susceptible wheat with an agronomically similar wheat expressing the antibiotic resistance gene Sm1. The frequencies of eggs, mature larvae and parasitized larvae in susceptible and resistant wheat spikes, and midge-affected seeds in the harvest, were recorded for each plot. In susceptible wheat, insect densities and seed damage were typical of those in commercial wheat. In resistant wheat, few larvae completed development, 2% or less compared with about 80% in susceptible wheat, when larvae were sampled at maturity. This resistant wheat also deterred midge oviposition, reducing egg densities by 65% compared with susceptible wheat. The wheat midge and its parasitoid oviposited throughout the plots, and parasitism was density independent. The densities of mature midge larvae and parasitoids were in proportion to the size of the refuge. A 5% susceptible refuge produced about 41 mature larvae for each mature larva from the resistant wheat, and provided effective control of damage. An interspersed refuge of susceptible plants in resistant wheat is a promising strategy for sustaining resistance conferred by Sm1 and biocontrol of the wheat midge.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.333
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.307 · 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