Density, dispersal, and feeding impact of western flower thrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) on flowering chrysanthemum at different spatial scales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. 1. This study evaluated the effect of dispersal on the density and feeding impact of a phytophagous insect in relation to the spatial distribution of its host plants. 2. The interaction between density, dispersal, and feeding impact of western flower thrips on flowering chrysanthemum was quantified at three spatial scales, with infested and uninfested plants either isolated in 0.25 m 2 individual cages, or enclosed together in 2.25 m 2 communal cages or 75 m 2 greenhouses. 3. In individual cages, the rate of dispersal from chrysanthemum plants to blue sticky traps increased with the density of thrips for females but not males. Uninfested plants consistently had fewer thrips when they were individually caged rather than enclosed with plants infested with adults, indicating that dispersal mediates inter‐plant distribution of thrips. 4. The feeding impact of thrips on inflorescences was evaluated using the absorbance of ethanol extracts at wavelengths characteristic of yellow carotenoid pigments associated with chrysanthemum inflorescences (415, 445, and 472 nm). Increasing absorbance of extracts with increasing density of thrips per inflorescence suggests that feeding by thrips results in ruptured cells leaching carotenoid pigments. 5. In communal cages, the distribution of thrips was uniform for infested and uninfested plants, whereas the density and feeding impact of thrips in greenhouses were higher for infested than uninfested plants. These results suggest that short‐range dispersal by adults homogenises the density and feeding impact of thrips among host plants only on a small spatial scale.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".