Comparison of Relative Bias, Precision, and Efficiency of Sampling Methods for Natural Enemies of Soybean Aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Generalist natural enemies play an important role in controlling soybean aphid, Aphis glycines (Hemiptera: Aphididae), in North America. Several sampling methods are used to monitor natural enemy populations in soybean, but there has been little work investigating their relative bias, precision, and efficiency. We compare five sampling methods: quadrats, whole-plant counts, sweep-netting, walking transects, and yellow sticky cards to determine the most practical methods for sampling the three most prominent species, which included Harmonia axyridis (Pallas), Coccinella septempunctata L. (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), and Orius insidiosus (Say) (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae). We show an important time by sampling method interaction indicated by diverging community similarities within and between sampling methods as the growing season progressed. Similarly, correlations between sampling methods for the three most abundant species over multiple time periods indicated differences in relative bias between sampling methods and suggests that bias is not consistent throughout the growing season, particularly for sticky cards and whole-plant samples. Furthermore, we show that sticky cards produce strongly biased capture rates relative to the other four sampling methods. Precision and efficiency differed between sampling methods and sticky cards produced the most precise (but highly biased) results for adult natural enemies, while walking transects and whole-plant counts were the most efficient methods for detecting coccinellids and O. insidiosus, respectively. Based on bias, precision, and efficiency considerations, the most practical sampling methods for monitoring in soybean include walking transects for coccinellid detection and whole-plant counts for detection of small predators like O. insidiosus. Sweep-netting and quadrat samples are also useful for some applications, when efficiency is not paramount.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".