Distribution pattern and host preference of African invader fly, Bactrocera invadens (Drew, Tsuruta and White) [Diptera: Tephritidae] in Akure and its environs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The presence, distribution pattern and host preference of the African Invader Fly, Bactrocera invadens (Drew, Tsuruta and White) was studied in three different locations in Akure and its environs, Federal University of Technology Akure (FUTA), Federal College of Agriculture (FECA) and Ipogun (Ondo State, southwestern Nigeria) on mango, citrus and pawpaw for a period of eight weeks. Trapping of the fruit flies was done using fabricated plastic bottle traps baited with Methyl Eugenol (ME) (4-allyl-1,2-dimethoxybenzen) pre-mixed with insecticide, Plan D. The flywas present in the three locations sampled throughout the study period. Average value of the fly obtained revealed that Bactrocera invadens was most abundant at Ipogun village compared with FECA and FUTA and was significantly different at p > 0.05. The result also showed no significant difference in the number of catches at FECA and FUTA, but showed significant difference in Ipogun throughout the period of the study (p > 0.05). Pattern of catches was also observed to increase with the number of weeks on all the hosts at the three locations. The computed mean density of the fly in the various locations showed that number of fly caught was most on the mango host than citrus and pawpaw, though, no significant difference was observed between the three hosts at the end of the eight weeks. This study has provided information on the presence, distribution pattern and preference for already identified hosts within the region. It is therefore recommended that continuous monitoring of the fly’s population be initiated, while the comprehensive control measure is urgently required.
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 | 0.001 | 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".