Two‐year oscillation cycle in abundance of soybean aphid in Indiana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study evaluated the population dynamics of the heteroecious soybean aphid Aphis glycines Matsumura (Hemiptera: Aphididae) during an 8‐year period in Indiana, shortly after its detection in North America. Sampling conducted at multiple locations revealed that A. glycines exhibited a 2‐year oscillation cycle that repeated itself four times between 2001 and 2008: years of low aphid abundance were consistently followed by years of high aphid abundance. Similar patterns of abundance of A. glycines and coccinellids (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) in soybean fields, both within and between‐years, suggest that late season predation by coccinellids plays a role in the oscillatory cycle of aphids. Insidious flower bugs Orius insidiosus (Say) (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae) were numerically more abundant than coccinellids, although the lack of synchrony between aphids and predatory bugs suggests that O. insidiosus has a limited influence on between‐year variations in aphid density. The inverse relationship between aphid densities before and after the start of the autumn migratory period changes direction in alternate years. High aphid density on soybean in the summer is associated with a reduced number of alate migrants produced in the autumn. Conversely, years with low density aphids on soybean in the summer are characterized by high numbers of alates that migrate to the primary host in the autumn. From a pest management perspective, the 2‐year oscillation cycle of A. glycines is a desirable attribute with respect to population dynamics because it implies that aphids cause significant economic damage only in alternate years (as opposed to every year). Cultural practices enhancing the conservation biological control of Coccinellidae may help to preserve the periodicity of aphid infestation and restrict the pest status of A. glycines.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".