Does larval aggregation pheromone of codling moth,<i>Cydia pomonella</i>, induce attraction or arrestment of receivers?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cocoon-spinning larvae of the codling moth, Cydia pomonella, emit a pheromone that mediates aggregation by pupation site-seeking fifth-instar larvae. It was unknown and, thus, we tested whether the aggregation pheromone induces arrestment or attraction responses. In paired straight-tube experiment 1, fifth-instars moved faster and farther upwind toward cospecific cocoons compared to blank controls. In still-air cage experiment 2, fifth-instars selected more often as first and final choices of pupation sites those with cocooning conspecifics than those without. Finally, in Y-tube olfactometer experiment 3, fifth-instars anemotactically responded to, and preferred, side arms with cocooning conspecifics to those without. Our data provide evidence that codling moth larvae are attracted to, rather than merely arrested by, larval aggregation pheromone. These results help explain reported aggregations or clumped distributions of larvae on tree trunks, which would likely not occur if they were based merely on chance encounter of cocoon-spinning larvae by foraging larvae.
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".