MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329527089 · doi:10.1093/jee/tow002

Diamondback Moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) Exhibits Oviposition and Larval Feeding Preferences Among Crops, Wild plants, and Ornamentals as Host Plants

2016· article· en· W2329527089 on OpenAlexaff
Kiera Newman, Minsheng You, Liette Vasseur

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Economic Entomology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlutellidaeBiologyDiamondback mothLepidoptera genitaliaPlutellaOrnamental plantLarvaHost (biology)AgronomyBotanyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae), is an agricultural pest with high reproductive potential, widespread distribution, and high resistance to different types of insecticides. Although diamondback moth is a common research subject, questions remain regarding its spatial and temporal host plant usage patterns and preferences within agroecosystems. We examined the adult oviposition and larval feeding preferences of the diamondback moth to assess the potential of alternate host plants as either reservoirs or trap crops. Adult females and third and fourth instars were offered multiple plant species within the plant family Brassicaceae to examine contact preferences and larval ingestion rates. Adult oviposition and larval feeding preferences were identical, with garden cress (Lepidium sativum) (L.) highly preferred, followed by wintercress (Barbarea vulgaris) (L.) and black mustard (Brassica nigra) (L.). Ingestion rates varied among tested plants, with the lowest rate on black mustard and highest on aubretia (Aubretia deltoidea) (L.). Highly preferred plant species were determined to be unfavorable for larval growth and potentially lethal to neonates, suggesting their possible use as trap crops. Understanding ovipositional and larval feeding preferences of diamondback moth can also aid in the development of more accurate monitoring and control strategies for this pest.

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 score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Economic EntomologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207