Ultraviolet and violet light: attractive orientation cues for the Indian meal moth, <i>Plodia interpunctella</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Indian meal moth (IMM), Plodia interpunctella (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), engages in long‐distance or foraging flights in the twilight hours of the scotophase when blue light dominates the irradiance spectrum of the sky. We tested the hypothesis that IMM uses wavelengths of visible blue/violet light as orientation cues that trigger phototactic responses. In four‐choice laboratory experiments, blue light (400–475 nm) was significantly more effective than green (475–600 nm), orange (575–700 nm), or red (590–800 nm) light in attracting males and mated females. In subsequent experiments that tested light emitting diodes (LEDs) emitting peak wavelengths in the blue/violet‐light range, the 405‐nm ‘violet’ LED was significantly more effective than the 435‐, 450‐, or 470‐nm ‘blue’ LED in attracting males as well as virgin and mated females. In electroretinogram recordings, the 405‐nm wavelength elicited significantly stronger receptor potentials from female and male eyes than the 350‐nm (UV) wavelength, and in a behavioral experiment it significantly enhanced the known attractiveness of UV light. Equal attraction of IMMs to 405‐nm LEDs at 600–700 µW/cm 2 with or without UV light, and significantly stronger attraction to a 405‐nm LED than to a 350‐nm LED at maximum light intensities, suggest that the deployment of violet instead of UV light could become one of several management tactics for control of IMMs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".