MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2259349874 · doi:10.4039/tce.2015.1

Plant bugs (Hemiptera: Miridae) on field beans and soybeans in Manitoba, Canada: species composition and seasonal occurrence

2015· article· en· W2259349874 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Tharshinidevy Nagalingam, N. J. Holliday

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Entomologist · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHemiptera Insect Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsMiridaeLygusTarnished plant bugNymphBiologyAgronomyHemipteraHorticultureBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In Manitoba, Canada, commercial soybeans and two types of field beans, navy and pinto, were sampled for plant bugs. At the centre and margins of 36 fields, sweep net and tap tray samples were taken weekly. In all three crops, Lygus lineolaris (Palisot de Beauvois) (Hemiptera: Miridae) comprised >78% and Adelphocoris lineolatus (Goeze) (Hemiptera: Miridae) <10% of adult mirids. Species composition varied among years but not among crops. For Lygus Hahn, nymphs were 46% of the catch in trays and 23% in sweeps, but total Lygus catch in trays was >2% of that in sweeps. Catch/sample effort was similar at field centres and margins for both Lygus adults and nymphs. Lygus lineolaris reproduced and developed in all three crops. In field beans, Lygus adults were first collected in late vegetative and early pod set stages and late instar nymphs and adults were present from pod elongation until maturity – results consistent with immigration of first summer generation reproductive adults and development of the second generation in the crops. There was evidence of late season immigration of Lygus into all crops. There was no loss of seed quantity attributable to mirids in any of the crops; in field beans there was no evidence that mirids reduced seed quality.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.166 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian EntomologistSame topicHemiptera Insect StudiesFrench-language works237,207