The influence of water deficiency on the relationship between canola (Brassica napus L.), and two aphid species (Hemiptera: Aphididae), Lipaphis erysimi (Kaltenbach) and Brevicoryne brassicae (L.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Commercially grown canola, Brassica napus, is negatively affected by both water deficiency and herbivory. A glasshouse experiment evaluated the relationship between water deficiency and herbivory of two aphid species, Brevicoryne brassicae (L.) and Lipaphis erysimi (Kaltenbach) (Hemiptera: Aphididae), on canola. The effect of water deficiency on aphid performance was also evaluated. Brassica napus plants were provided with either continuous water (well-watered) or were watered only once per week (water-deficient). The plants were exposed to either B. brassicae, L. erysimi, or no aphids at all. Aphid population increase, plant growth, and water relations were measured after 3 weeks. Water deficiency reduced plant growth and altered water relations in B. napus. Feeding by the aphid L. erysimi substantially reduced growth of both water-deficient and well-watered B. napus. However, herbivory by B. brassicae reduced plant growth only in conjunction with water limitation, demonstrating an interaction between limited water and insect infestation on the performance of B. napus. The aphid species and water deficiency treatments also differentially affected turgor potential, osmotic potential, leaf water potential, and leaf water content. The two species of aphids responded differently to changes in their host plants. The average size and numbers of B. brassicae aphids were lower but the percentage of alates was higher on plants with limited water relative to those on well-watered plants. The average size and numbers of L. erysimi aphids were unaffected by water limitation and the percentage of alates produced was slightly reduced in the water-deficient plants. Water limitation is likely to reduce the growth of plants, particularly when B. brassicae infests the crop. However, L. erysimi is probably the more serious pest of the two aphids in that it reduced plant growth regardless of watering regime and its development was unaffected by the status of the host plant.
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".