MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037993277 · doi:10.1139/b05-166

Feeding impact of <i>Lygus lineolaris</i> (Heteroptera: Miridae) on <i>Vitis vinifera</i>: a behavioural and histological study

2006· article· en· W2037993277 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Dominique Fleury, Josiane Paré, C. Vincent, Yves Mauffette

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHemiptera Insect Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsLygusMiridaePedicelBiologyTarnished plant bugPhenologyNymphBerryHeteropteraHorticultureOvipositorNectarBotanyHymenoptera

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nymphs and adults of the tarnished plant bug ( Lygus lineolaris (Palisot de Beauvois)) feeding on grapevine were videorecorded in the laboratory to determine the short-term impact of feeding punctures at various phenological stages. Feeding behaviour was significantly different between nymphs and adults in the number of punctures but not in the feeding time spent. Observations by light and scanning electron microscopy showed that, from phenological stages B (bud burst) to F (visible cluster), feeding did not cause plant damage and injuries did not impact the meristems, which were coated with viscous or filamentous pectin. During phenological stages H (florets separated) and I (flowering), feeding was restricted to nectar glands, and as there is no functional relationship between nectaries and ovaries, feeding had no impact on normal development of ovaries. In later phenological stages J (berry set) to L (cluster closure, berry touch), most damage was on the pedicels of berries. Pedicels attacked at the next phenological stage show no evidence of injuries. Grapevine appears to tolerate punctual feeding made by this insect; damage is minimal and berry production is not threatened.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicHemiptera Insect StudiesFrench-language works237,207