Feeding Potential of Menochilus sexmaculatus (Fabricius) Against Sucking Insect Pests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This laboratory experiment was conducted to find out the feeding performance and larval development of Menochilus sexmaculatus (Fabricuis) on Aphis gossypii (Glov.), Bemisia tabaci (Ginn.) and Amrasca biguttula biguttula (Distant) at 26 ± 2ºC temperature and 65 ± 5% relative humidity. The result indicated that the 3rd and 4th instar larvae of the beetle consumed 76.20 ± 3.44 and 79.7 ± 0.77 nymphs of A. gossypii /day followed by (23.0 ± 0.77) and (23.4 ± 0.75) nymphs of B. tabaci and (19.73 ± 1.17) and (21.55 ± 0.77) nymphs of A. b. biguttula, respectively as compared to 1st and 2nd instar larvae. Adult female consumed maximum (101.0 ± 0.55) nymphs of A. gossypii /day followed by (26.90 ± 0.27) nymphs of B. tabaci and (22.16 ± 0.20) nymphsof A. b. biguttula as compared to male. The result further revealed that the 4th instar larva consumed highest number 159.4 ± 7.35 of A. gossypii nymphs during its life span followed by (93.8 ± 3.02) and (86.2 ± 3.09) nymphs of B. tabaci and A. b. biguttula, respectively. Similarly, the adult female devoured highest number of nymphs (3040.2 ± 26.4) of A. gossypii followed by B. tabaci (807.0±8.1) and A. b. biguttula (664.98±6.0) during its life span as compare to male. The shortest life span was recorded on A. gossypiias compared to A. b. biguttula and B. tabaci, There was highly significant difference in consumption rate and development period of larvae and adult beetles on different prey species (P
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".