MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reproductive biology and small‐scale rearing of cherry bark tortrix and its candidate biological control agent

2005· article· en· W2073261097 on OpenAlexafffund
W. H. Jenner, U. Kuhlmann, J. E. Cossentine, Bernard D. Roitberg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Entomology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBiological Control of Invasive Species
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaSimon Fraser University
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsBiologyParasitoidInstarTortricidaeIchneumonidaeLarvaParasitismBiological pest controlBark (sound)ZoologyBotanyHorticultureToxicologyEcologyHost (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The larval parasitoid, Campoplex dubitator (Hym.,: Ichneumonidae), is under consideration as an agent for classical biological control of cherry bark tortrix (CBT), Enarmonia formosana (Lep.,: Tortricidae), in North America. A comprehensive risk analysis of the candidate agent will require prosperous cultures of both the pest and its parasitoid. We present a rearing method for small‐scale production of both species using a bean‐based artificial diet, with additional information on the reproductive biology of C. dubitator . Based on estimated survivorship probabilities, a CBT egg had a 70% chance of developing completely to the adult stage under this system. The success of parasitism, however, was very dependent on the instar of the CBT host larva at the time of oviposition. All parasitised first instar larvae died shortly after the attack, rendering them unsuitable for oviposition, while 50% of parasitised second instar larvae died prematurely. In contrast, early mortality was 15–30% for larvae parasitised in the third to fifth instars. Regardless of the instar at oviposition, approximately 90% of the surviving hosts yielded parasitoids, showing a high acceptance by C. dubitator of second to fifth instars for oviposition.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied EntomologySame topicBiological Control of Invasive SpeciesFrench-language works237,207