Spatial and temporal distribution of winged aphids (Hemiptera: Aphididae) frequenting blueberry fields in southwestern British Columbia and implications for the spread of <i>Blueberry scorch virus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Alate aphids were sampled in five fields of commercial blueberry, Vaccinium corymbosum L. (Ericaceae), during 2001 and 2002 using yellow tile, green tile, and Tremclad® yellow water traps. Eighty-seven species were identified among a total of 7722 alatae. Several of the species are known virus vectors, including Aphis fabae Scopoli, Brachycaudus helichrysi (Kaltenbach), Hyalopterus pruni (Geoffroy), Hyperomyzus lactucae (L.), Myzus persicae (Sulzer), Rhopalosiphoninus staphyleae (Koch), and Rhopalosiphum padi (L.). The number of species caught varied with year, and the number of species and the total number of alatae varied with field, trap colour, and season. More species were caught in 2001 than in 2002, in yellow than in green traps, and in the summer than in the spring or the autumn, and more alatae were caught in Tremclad® yellow traps than in yellow or green tile traps, and in the autumn than in the spring or the summer. However, numerous interactions limit generalizations. Analyses of the data for individual species revealed similar patterns and interactions. The effects of year, field, trap colour, and season varied with species. Given nonpersistent virus transmission and the large numbers of alatae caught of species that are known virus vectors, there is considerable potential for spread of Blueberry scorch virus by migrant aphids. Field- or area-specific and season-specific control strategies could be developed once the virus vector status of the different species is known. In addition, given the number of significant interactions observed in the data, there is a need to investigate alternative, generalized approaches to reducing virus transmission rates, such as applying whitewash or kaolin particle film to blueberry leaves.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".