Cocoon‐spinning larvae of Oriental fruit moth and Indianmeal moth do not produce aggregation pheromone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract 1 Mature larvae of the Oriental fruit moth (OFM) Grapholita molesta (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) and the Indianmeal moth (IMM) Plodia interpunctella (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) leave their food source in search of suitable pupation sites in which to spin cocoons. These sites are typically well‐concealed cracks and crevices within the environment. Such cocooning behaviour is also observed in larvae of the codling moth (CM) Cydia pomonella (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), which aggregate prior to pupation in response to a pheromone blend produced by cocoon‐spinning conspecific larvae. 2 In laboratory experiments, we tested whether cocoon‐spinning OFM and IMM larvae produce aggregation pheromones and whether CM larvae are cross‐attracted to closely‐related OFM larvae. 3 Fifth‐instar OFM and IMM larvae were not attracted to, or arrested by, cocoon‐spinning conspecifics. Moreover, fifth‐instar CM larvae were not cross‐attracted to either cocoon‐spinning OFM or IMM larvae. 4 Analyses of volatiles released from cocoon‐spinning OFM and IMM larvae revealed that both OFM and IMM lack components that are present in the aggregation pheromone of CM larvae. This information may help explain why CM larvae are not cross‐attracted to cocooning OFM or IMM larvae.
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) | 0.002 | 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".