MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122009683 · doi:10.5539/jas.v4n6p152

Response of Diaphorina citri Kuwayama (Hemiptera: Psyllidae) to Volatiles Emitted from Leaves of Two Rutaceous Plants

2012· article· en· W2122009683 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hassan Sule, Rita Muhamad, Dzolkhifli Omar, Alvin Kah-Wei Hee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPhytoplasmas and Hemiptera pathogens
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversiti Putra Malaysia
KeywordsDiaphorina citriOlfactometerHemipteraBiologyRutaceaePEST analysisBotanyHorticulturePhloemHost (biology)Ecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diaphorina citri Kuwayama (Hemiptera: Psyllidae) is an important worldwide pest of citrus, because of its ability to vector the three phloem-restricted bacteria in the genus Candidatus Liberibacter, that cause citrus greening or huanglungbing. Studies were conducted to examine the effects of flush growth stage and volatile compounds emitted by two rutaceae plants on oviposition and feeding site selection of D. citri. Three methods including choice, no choice and Y tube olfactometer assays were conducted using plants with only newly expanded leaves (4-6 days old), plants with all leaves completely hardened (14-21 days old) and plants without leaves (14-21 days old). The results showed that significant number of adult D. citri were attracted to plants with newly expanded leaves for oviposition and feeding in both choice and no choice assay, and when the two plants were assayed together in Y tube, significant number of the adults select Y tube arm with Citrus suhuiensis leaves and similarly in choice assay more adults select C. suhuiensis for oviposition and feeding than Murraya paniculata. The results gave an insight into response of D. citri to different plant forms and volatiles emitted by the plant which is useful in monitoring and management of the pest.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.524
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicPhytoplasmas and Hemiptera pathogensFrench-language works237,207