MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123668762 · doi:10.1603/an09118

Survey for Winter Moth (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) in Northeastern North America with Pheromone-Baited Traps and Hybridization with the Native Bruce Spanworm (Lepidoptera: Geometridae)

2010· article· en· W2123668762 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joseph S. Elkinton, George H. Boettner, Marinko Sremac, Rodger Gwiazdowski, Roy Hunkins, J. Thomas Callahan, Susan B. Scheufele, Charlene Donahue, Adam Porter, Ashot Khrimian, Brenda M. Whited, Nichole K. Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the Entomological Society of America · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect Pheromone Research and Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAnimal and Plant Health Inspection ServiceU.S. Forest ServiceU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsLepidoptera genitaliaBiologyEcologyDNA barcodingHybrid zoneZoologyGene flowGenetic variation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We used pheromone-baited traps to survey the distribution of winter moth, Operophtera brumata (L.) (Lepidoptera: Geometridae), a new invasive defoliator from Europe in eastern New England. The traps also attracted Bruce spanworm, Operophtera bruceata (Hulst) (Lepidoptera: Geometridae), native to North America. We distinguished between the two species by examining male genitalia and sequencing the mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase subunit 1 (COI) gene, the DNA barcoding region. In 2005, we recovered winter moths at sites stretching from eastern Long Island, southeastern Connecticut, all of Rhode Island, eastern Massachusetts, coastal New Hampshire, and southern coastal Maine. At sites further west and north we captured only Bruce spanworm. In 2006, we confirmed that both winter moth and Bruce spanworm are present in Nova Scotia and in coastal Maine, but only Bruce spanworm was recovered in coastal New Brunswick, Canada; Pennsylvania; Vermont; or Quebec City, Canada. In 2007, we collected Bruce spanworm, but no winter moths, in New Brunswick and the interior areas of Maine, New Hampshire, and New York. Winter moth and Brace spanworm differed in the COI sequence by 7.45% of their nucleotides. The prevalence of intermediate genitalia in the zone of overlap suggested that hybridization between the two species may be occurring. To confirm the presence of hybrids, we sequenced the nuclear gene, glucose-6phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD). We identified six nucleotides that routinely distinguished winter moth and Bruce spanworm, of which three were always diagnostic. We showed that eggs produced by hybridizing the two species in the laboratory contained copies of both species at these six sites. We found that most of the moths collected in the field with intermediate genitalia had winter moth CO1 and G6PD sequences and thus were not hybrids (or at least F1 hybrids). We found three hybrids out of 158 moths with intermediate genitalia in the region where both species were caught. We conclude that hybrids occur in nature, but are not as common as previously reported. Introgression of genes between the two species may still be significant.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.861
Threshold uncertainty score0.276

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations46
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the Entomological Society of AmericaSame topicInsect Pheromone Research and ControlFrench-language works237,207