Ecology and management of <i>Ericaphis fimbriata</i> (Hemiptera: Aphididae) in relation to the potential for spread of <i>Blueberry scorch virus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aphids were sampled in commercial blueberry, Vaccinium corymbosum L. (Ericaceae), fields in southwestern British Columbia, Canada, from 2001 through 2003. Ericaphis fimbriata (Richards), the dominant aphid, overwintered as eggs on blueberry and emerged in late February and March during bud break. Apterous adult fundatrices were found during April. The fundatrices produced both alate and apterous virginoparae. There was a positive curvilinear relationship between production of alatae and aphid density on flower clusters, but not on leaf terminals. Peak densities in late June or early July varied from 300 to 9000 aphids per plant in different fields, suggesting that there may be considerable variation in Blueberry scorch virus transmission rates among fields infected with the virus. Production of alate virginoparae (percentage of all fourth-instar aphids with wing pads) declined from May through August. Sexual morphs were produced in late September and October. The efficacy of postbloom insecticide applications in June, by growers, was variable. Experimental trials showed that dormant oil is not effective in preventing aphid emergence. Aphids on blueberry should be controlled before bloom, before alatae are produced and large populations occur, but the efficacy of this approach in reducing virus transmission needs to be tested.
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 | 0.000 | 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".