Comparison of a Canadian and a Dutch strain of the parasitoid <i>Aphelinus mali</i> (Hald) (Hym., Aphelinidae) for control of woolly apple aphid <i>Eriosoma lanigerum</i> (Haussmann) (Hom., Aphididae) in the Netherlands: a simulation approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Woolly apple aphid, Eriosoma lanigerum is one of the important apple pests in the Netherlands. Weather conditions and natural enemies determine whether woolly apple aphid (WAA) will reach pest status. WAA may escape control by natural enemies and therefore it must be controlled using chemical insecticides. To prevent unnecessary applications of insecticides and to promote biological and natural control of WAA more knowledge is needed about the role of natural enemies, weather and their effects on the development of WAA populations. The monophagous parasitoid Aphelinus mali (Hald.) has been introduced into most of apple growing areas to control WAA, but success is variable and depends on climatological conditions. In the Netherlands the level of parasitization is often too low, especially after warm winters. The biological control potential of a strain of A. mali from Nova Scotia (Canada) was compared with a Dutch strain by simulating population growth of both WAA and the Dutch and Canadian strain of the parasitoid for three different years The results indicate that the Canadian strain would perform in general better than the Dutch strain under Dutch weather conditions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".