Life-history parameters and population dynamics of <i>Ericaphis fimbriata</i> (Hemiptera: Aphididae) on blueberry, <i>Vaccinium corymbosum</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Development rate and age-specific fecundity and survival of Ericaphis fimbriata (Richards) virginoparae were determined during the spring on young leaves of blueberry, Vaccinium corymbosum L., as functions of temperature. The same traits were measured during the summer and the autumn on both young and mature leaves at 21.2 °C. The temperature threshold for development was 4.1 ± 0.5 °C (SE). For apterae, development time from birth to adult was 157.7 ± 5.9 day-degrees (dd). Proportional lengths of instars I–IV were 0.16, 0.14, 0.34, and 0.36, respectively. Adult life was 434.5 ± 17.5 dd and proportional lengths of the pre-reproductive, reproductive, and post-reproductive periods were 0.05, 0.74, and 0.21, respectively. Mean fecundity was 23.6 ± 1.0 nymphs per female. Mean survival was 602.9 ± 14.6 dd, and more than 80% of apterae survived the peak reproductive period. Alate fecundity was 16.5 ± 3.2 nymphs per female and alate survival was 460.9 ± 47.5 dd. Leaf type and season of measurement had significant effects on development time and fecundity: development time was 158.2 dd (+4.9 upper asymmetric SE) on young V. corymbosum ‘Duke’ leaves in the spring but 312.4 dd (–16.9 lower asymmetric SE) on mature ‘Bluecrop’ leaves, the dominant leaf type, from a commercial field in the summer. Fecundity for the respective leaf types and seasons was 16.7 (–1.6) and 1.4 (+0.5) nymphs per female. From summer to autumn, development time increased on young ‘Duke’ and ‘Bluecrop’ leaves but decreased on mature ‘Bluecrop’ leaves; fecundity decreased on young ‘Duke’ and ‘Bluecrop’ leaves but remained at low levels on mature ‘Bluecrop’ leaves. A simulation model showed that seasonal changes in development time and fecundity were capable of reducing population growth rates to near zero depending on aphid distribution with respect to young and mature leaves. The results support a combined bottom-up and top-down view of aphid population regulation and suggest that control efforts should focus on the spring, when the population growth rate is maximal.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".