MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128378435 · doi:10.7202/008490ar

Vertical distribution profile of Colorado potato beetle [Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae] in flight above host, resistant host and non-host fields

2004· article· en· W2128378435 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Chris J.K. MacQuarrie, Gilles Boiteau

Bibliographic record

VenuePhytoprotection · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColorado potato beetleLeptinotarsaBiologyHost (biology)Biological dispersalInterceptionInsectPEST analysisPopulationAgronomyBotanyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We evaluated the vertical stratification of Colorado potato beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata) (CPB) populations in flight above fields of conventional potato, an insect resistant potato field expressing genes for Bacillus thuringiensis tenebrionis (Btt) toxins and a non-host clover field. Flight interception traps at 0 - 1.2, 1.2 - 2.4 and 2.4 - 3.6 m above ground were used to determine the vertical profiles of the aerial population over each crop for a growing season. The distribution of overwintered and summer CPB catches above conventional potatoes was similar with a significant effect of trap height on catch. The same vertical distribution profile was observed for overwintered CPB and a similar trend for summer CPB above the insect resistant field. Few overwintered beetles were captured over the clover field but enough summer CPBs were caught to detect a trend similar to that on resistant potatoes. Additional data show that more than 70% of CPBs fly less than 4 m in distance at a height of less than 2 m. These data suggest that the vertical flight profiles observed result from local dispersal of resident populations, or low level flights of summer beetles, but not from high level flights of dispersing overwintered adults.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.563

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations5
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhytoprotectionSame topicInsect Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207