Characterization of the feeding behavior of three <i><scp>E</scp>rythroneura</i> species on grapevine by histological and <scp>DC</scp>‐electrical penetration graph techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Feeding behavior of three leafhopper species – Erythroneura vitis (Harris), Erythroneura ziczac (Walsh), and Erythroneura elegantula (Say) (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) – reared on grapevine, Vitis vinifera L. cv. ‘Seyval blanc’ (Vitaceae), was investigated using histological techniques and DC‐electrical penetration graphs (DC‐EPG). Histological studies revealed that the Erythroneura species induced white stipples on the leaves and that these leafhoppers produced thin salivary sheaths in grapevine leaf tissues. The DC‐EPG system allowed the characterization of five waveforms associated with stylet penetration and feeding in leaf tissues. These waveforms were characteristic of feeding phases corresponding to epidermis penetration pathway, salivation, and ingestion. We calculated 28 parameters (e.g., number of probes, duration of phases, and time spent in the various tissues) to describe and compare the feeding behavior of the Erythroneura species. We conclude that the three Erythroneura species are mainly mesophyll feeders but may probably also feed in other tissues such as xylem.
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) | 0.000 | 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".