Is lack of mating competitiveness in spring linked to mating asynchrony between wild and mass‐reared codling moths from an operational sterile insect programme?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mating competitiveness and pheromone trap catches of mass‐reared, male codling moth, Cydia pomonella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), from the Osoyoos, British Columbia, Canada, mass‐rearing facility operated by the Okanagan‐Kootenay Sterile Insect Release Board, were compared to wild males using mark–release–recapture field experiments in spring, summer, and autumn at Summerland, British Columbia. In spring, significantly more wild diapause males mated with tethered, wild females than did non‐irradiated (0 Gy) or irradiated (100 or 250 Gy) non‐diapause, mass‐reared males. A lower dose of radiation did not improve mating competitiveness, nor catches of mass‐reared males released in spring. Median mating time for wild males was approximately 45 min earlier than mass‐reared males with most wild males (70.5%) mating before sunset and mass‐reared males mating at or shortly after sunset in spring. Superior mating competitiveness of wild males in spring was mirrored by greater recapture rates in pheromone‐baited traps. In summer, mating competitiveness of mass‐reared moths improved relative to wild males and there was a significant inverse relationship between radiation dose (0, 100, and 250 Gy) and competitiveness of mass‐reared males. In autumn, untreated, wild males were significantly more responsive to pheromone traps than non‐diapausing mass‐reared males receiving 250 Gy of radiation. Mass‐reared males, subjected to diapause‐inducing conditions as larvae and emerged from diapause before this irradiation treatment, were recaptured significantly more often than similarly irradiated, non‐diapause, mass‐reared males, but not more than untreated, diapause wild males. We hypothesize that differences between wild and mass‐reared males in daily timing or speed of responses to natural or synthetic pheromone sources under montane weather patterns typical of spring in British Columbia may partially explain poor activity of sterile males, and low sterile : wild overflooding ratios during spring when measured using pheromone traps by the sterile insect release programme in British Columbia.
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".