The occurrence and potential relevance of post-release, nontarget attack by Mogulones cruciger, a biocontrol agent for Cynoglossum officinale in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reports on nontarget attack by introduced biological control agents have caused debate over the safety of biological control of weeds. One outcome of this dialogue is the importance of monitoring for nontarget attack and its effects as part of post-release assessments. This is particularly vital in the case of the root-mining weevil Mogulones cruciger , which was approved and released in Canada, but not in the United States, to control Cynoglossum officinale. Mogulones cruciger was first released in British Columbia in 1997, following recommendations of the American Technical Advisory Group and the Canadian Biological Control Review Committee. During the same year, the US Fish and Wildlife Service raised concerns about potential nontarget effects by this insect to Boraginaceae species on the endangered species list. To assess the occurrence of nontarget attack, and its potential for nontarget effects, we identified and monitored confamilial species co-occurring with C. officinale at six M. cruciger release sites in Alberta and British Columbia over a two year period. All four co-occurring species were attacked by the weevil to varying degrees, although attack was inconsistent between years and sites. Nontarget species were attacked to a lesser degree than C. officinale , but differences were not consistent for species, sites, or years. There was a positive relationship between the probability of nontarget attack and C. officinale attack rate by M. cruciger. Our data suggest that the immigration of M. cruciger into the US may expose certain Boraginaceae to nontarget attack, but the transitory nature of that attack and consequently the risk to native species is unknown.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".