MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058634456 · doi:10.1603/0046-225x-33.4.1088

Inducible Responses in Papaya: Impact on Population Growth Rates of Herbivorous Mites and Powdery Mildew Under Field Conditions

2004· article· en· W2058634456 on OpenAlexaff
Valérie Fournier, Jay A. Rosenheim, Jacques Brodeur, Marshall W. Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Entomology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersAgricultural Research ServiceU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsPowdery mildewBiologyRust (programming language)PopulationMiteBotanySpider miteSpiderMildewHorticultureEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Induced plant responses to herbivores and pathogens have been found in many systems. We examined intra- and interspecific interactions among three parasites through induced responses in their shared host plant, papaya. Three key parasites attack papaya foliage in Hawaii: the carmine spider mite, Tetranychus cinnabarinus (Boisduval); the papaya rust mite, Calacarus flagelliseta Fletchmann, De Moraes, and Barbosa; and the powdery mildew causal agent, Oidium caricae F. Noack. Under laboratory conditions, papaya seedlings were first exposed to standardized populations of mites and mildew; the parasites were removed, and the clean, previously infested plants were transplanted into the field to be exposed to colonization by natural populations of plant parasites. Population growth of colonizers was monitored for a period of 3 mo. We found no evidence for induced plant resistance. Rather, our results suggest that papaya expresses a weak form of induced susceptibility after injury from papaya rust mites and powdery mildew. Plants exposed to rust mites as young seedlings subsequently supported larger populations of spider mites, and plants exposed early to powdery mildew subsequently supported larger populations of rust mites.

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 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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.561
Threshold uncertainty score0.536

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental EntomologySame topicInsect-Plant Interactions and ControlFrench-language works237,207