MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164349268 · doi:10.1603/0022-0493-93.4.1152

Oviposition by <I>Plutella xylostella</I> (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) and Effects of Phylloplane Waxiness

2000· article· en· W2164349268 on OpenAlexaff
Kristine A. Justus, Lloyd M. Dosdall, B. K. Mitchell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Economic Entomology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlutellaBiologyPlutellidaeEpicuticular waxWaxBrassicaDiatraea saccharalisHorticultureLepidoptera genitaliaPhyllosphereBotanyCanolaDiamondback moth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three approaches were used to investigate effects of host plant epicuticular waxes on oviposition site selection by Plutella xylostella (L.). In the first approach, oviposition on canola (Brassica napus L.) that had epicuticular wax reduced by application of a carbamate herbicide (S-ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate) was compared with oviposition on untreated control plants. A second approach compared oviposition on sibling strains of B. napus with different wax blooms (glossy and waxy), and a third approach compared oviposition by P. xylostella on parafilm that had been applied to glossy and waxy B. napus strains for transfer of leaf components. Significantly more eggs were deposited on herbicide-treated plants (with reduced epicuticular wax) than on untreated controls. Similarly, more eggs were deposited on glossy than on waxy sibling strains of B. napus. In parafilm assays significantly more eggs were deposited on treated than on untreated parafilm. Several mechanisms could explain the differences in attractiveness of surfaces with varying wax content as oviposition sites for P. xylostella, including visual, chemical, and tactile differences between substrates. These mechanisms are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations58
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Economic EntomologySame topicInsect-Plant Interactions and ControlFrench-language works237,207