The spread of the western flower thrips <i>Frankliniella occidentalis</i> (Pergande)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract 1 Since the late 1970s, the western flower thrips has spread from its original distribution in western North America to become a major worldwide crop pest. 2 A wide range of data sources have been used to map the original distribution in the U.S.A. and Canada, and the progress of the spread in the U.S.A., Canada, Europe, northern Africa and Australia. 3 The possible reasons for the start of the spread are discussed. The most likely reason is that intensive insecticide use in horticulture in the 1970s and 1980s selected an insecticide resistant strain or strains. These then established in glasshouses across North America and spread from there to Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia. 4 The international spread of the western flower thrips occurred predominantly by the movement of horticultural material, such as cuttings, seedlings and potted plants. Within Europe, an outward spread from the original outbreak in the Netherlands is discernible. The speed of spread was 229 ± 20 km/year. 5 The spread has not been restricted to glasshouses. The western flower thrips has established outdoors in areas with milder winters; for example, across the southern U.S.A., southern Europe and Australia. It also overwinters in some regions with colder winters. 6 Polyphagous phytophagous thrips have many factors predisposing them to become worldwide crop pests, particularly in glasshouses. Some other species that might spread in a similar way to the western flower thrips are listed.
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".