MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331485625 · doi:10.1017/s0007485312000120

Changes in aphid probing behaviour as a function of insect age and plant resistance level

2012· article· en· W2331485625 on OpenAlexafffund
Julien Pompon, Yvan Pelletier

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of Entomological Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaGovernment of New BrunswickUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyAphidInsectResistance (ecology)AphididaeBotanyEcologyAgronomyPEST analysisHomoptera

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aphids perform a series of behaviours to assess feeding suitability and, hence, to select a plant. Little information, however, is available on such behaviour after aphids have settled on a plant. Observation of probing behaviour over an extended period of time can improve our understanding of insect-plant interactions and is instrumental in the study of crop resistance. Here, we assessed the influence of aphid age and plant resistance level on aphid behaviour. An electrical penetration graph (EPG) technique was implemented to monitor the behaviour of potato aphid, Macrosiphum euphorbiae, alates on potato, Solanum tuberosum, and on both a susceptible and a resistant genotype of a wild Solanum species, S. chomatophilum. The behaviour was measured at daily intervals for the first seven days following adult emergence. The results indicated independent and interacting effects of aphid age and plant genotype on probing behaviour. Some behavioural discrepancies between susceptible and resistant genotypes were only observed after the first day, thus highlighting the limits of punctual one-day behavioural studies to assess plant resistance mechanisms. Our work supports the hypothesis that aphids continuously adapt their behaviour to the plant characteristics.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of Entomological ResearchSame topicInsect-Plant Interactions and ControlFrench-language works237,207