MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Factors Influencing the Use of Trap Plants for the Control of <I>Frankliniella occidentalis</I> (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) on Greenhouse Potted Chrysanthemum

2006· article· en· W2144017658 on OpenAlexaff
Rosemarije Buitenhuis, J. L. Shipp

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Entomology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThripidaeBiologyWestern flower thripsGreenhouseHorticultureThripsBotanyTrap (plumbing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Western flower thrips (Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande), Thysanoptera: Thripidae) are a major pest of greenhouse ornamentals. Insecticides are the main control measure used for F. occidentalis on ornamentals and impede the use of biological control in the greenhouse. Flowering chrysanthemums, Dendranthema grandiflora (Tzvelev), could be used as trap plants (i.e., plants that are more attractive to a pest than the crop) in an integrated pest management (IPM) program for the control of F. occidentalis on potted chrysanthemum in greenhouses. This study focused on certain behavioral characteristics of F. occidentalis that can influence the efficiency of the trap plant strategy. First, host plant selection of adult F. occidentalis was studied by determining the influence of distance and stage of the crop on the attractiveness of flowering chrysanthemum as trap plants. Second, the influence of F. occidentalis colonization (resident versus dispersing F. occidentalis) on trap plant efficacy was determined. Flowering chrysanthemum plants were more attractive to adult F. occidentalis than the vegetative, bud, and crack-bud plant stages up to distances of 12 m, and trap plants were more effective at attracting dispersing F. occidentalis than resident F. occidentalis. It is concluded that flowering chrysanthemums have potential as trap plants for F. occidentalis in potted chrysanthemum before flowering.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations25
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental EntomologySame topicInsect-Plant Interactions and ControlFrench-language works237,207