Population Dynamics of Western Flower Thrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) in Nectarine Orchards in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Development of a control strategy for thrips attacking nectarine trees depends on an understanding of their phenology, distribution, and life history as related to characteristics of nectarine orchards. To this end, we compared the overwintering behavior, distribution, and abundance of western flower thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande), among 11 nectarine orchards located in the dry central interior of British Columbia, Canada, during 1993 and 1994. Western flower thrips emerged from areas not previously used for agriculture (wild areas) and from within orchards before trees were out of dormancy. Flight of thrips within and around orchards peaked during early bud development, with a second major peak several weeks later after husk fall as the next generation emerged. Orchards protected from wild areas by other orchards had the lowest densities of thrips in buds. Density estimates of western flower thrips on trees were not affected by location of trees within orchards or buds within trees, but most thrips were found in the most developed buds on a tree at any one time. Thrips were not found within buds until petal was first visible on the buds. Larval feeding on buds at early petal fall resulted in serious surface russetting of fruit.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".