MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2175092566 · doi:10.1111/eea.12353

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

2015· article· en· W2175092566 on OpenAlexaff
Julien Saguez, Pierre Lemoyne, Philippe Giordanengo, Chrystel Olivier, Jacques Lasnier, Yves Mauffette, Charles Vincent

Bibliographic record

VenueEntomologia Experimentalis et Applicata · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPhytoplasmas and Hemiptera pathogens
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPenetration (warfare)LeafhopperXylemBiologyStyletBotanyHorticultureAnatomyHemiptera

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Feeding behavior of three leafhopper species – E rythroneura vitis ( H arris), E rythroneura ziczac ( W alsh), and E rythroneura elegantula ( S ay) ( H emiptera: C icadellidae) – reared on grapevine, V itis vinifera L. cv. ‘Seyval blanc’ ( V itaceae), was investigated using histological techniques and DC ‐electrical penetration graphs ( DC ‐ EPG ). Histological studies revealed that the E rythroneura 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 E rythroneura species. We conclude that the three E rythroneura 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations13
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEntomologia Experimentalis et ApplicataSame topicPhytoplasmas and Hemiptera pathogensFrench-language works237,207