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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".