Adult Tea Green Leafhoppers, Empoasca onukii (Matsuda), Change Behaviors under Varying Light Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Insect behaviors are often influenced by light conditions including photoperiod, light intensity, and wavelength. Understanding pest insect responses to changing light conditions may help with developing alternative strategies for pest control. Little is known about the behavioral responses of leafhoppers (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) to light conditions. The behavior of the tea green leafhopper, Empoasca onukii Matsuda, was examined when exposed to different light photoperiods or wavelengths. Observations included the frequency of locomotion and cleaning activities, and the duration of time spent searching. The results suggested that under normal photoperiod both female and male adults were generally more active in darkness (i.e., at night) than in light. In continuous darkness (DD), the locomotion and cleaning events in Period 1 (7:00-19:00) were significantly increased, when compared to the leafhoppers under normal photoperiod (LD). Leafhoppers, especially females, changed their behavioral patterns to a two day cycle under DD. Under continuous illumination (continuous quartz lamp light, yellow light at night, and green light at night), the activities of locomotion, cleaning, and searching were significantly suppressed during the night (19:00-7:00) and locomotion activities of both females and males were significantly increased during the day (7:00-19:00), suggesting a shift in circadian rhythm. Our work suggests that changes in light conditions, including photoperiod and wavelength, can influence behavioral activities of leafhoppers, potentially affecting other life history traits such as reproduction and development, and may serve as a method for leafhopper behavioral control.
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".