Changes in aphid probing behaviour as a function of insect age and plant resistance level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".