Influence of Light Intensity, Photoperiod, and Temperature on the Efficacy of Two Aphelinid Parasitoids of the Greenhouse Whitefly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In short-term laboratory experiments, we studied the influence of light intensity, photoperiod, and temperature on the feeding and oviposition activity of two aphelinid parasitoids, Encarsia formosa Gahan and Eretmocerus eremicus Rose and Zolnerowich, on the greenhouse whitefly, Trialeurodes vaporariorum (Westwood). E. eremicus parasitized significantly more whitefly hosts than E. formosa in all treatment combinations of light intensity and photoperiod at 24 and 20°C. At 24°C, both E. formosa and E. eremicus parasitized approximately twice as many whitefly hosts at the high light intensity (112–114 W/m2)–long daylength (L 16:D 8 h) treatment than at the low light intensity (12–14 W/m2)–short daylength (L 8:D 16 h) treatment. In most instances at 20 and 24°C, significantly more dead whitefly hosts were recorded in leaf cages introduced with parasitoids than leaf cages with no parasitoids, indicating that host feeding occurred. Both E. formosa and E. eremicus parasitized significantly more whitefly hosts under the simulated summer (i.e., high light intensity [82.0–83.6 W/m2]; long daylength [L 16:D 8 h], 24°C) treatment than the winter (i.e., low light intensity [10.8–11.1 W/m2]; short daylength [L 8:D 16 h], 20°C) treatment. In addition, significantly more dead whitefly hosts were observed in leaf cages introduced with E. eremicus than E. formosa under the winter treatment, suggesting that E. eremicus killed more whitefly hosts through host feeding than E. formosa. This was not the case for the other treatment combinations. E. eremicus contributes more to greenhouse whitefly mortality than E. formosa by a combination of greater parasitism and host feeding and therefore is recommended for use in winter months with day temperatures ≥ 20°C, in addition to later in the season, where it is currently being used.
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".