The effect of cold storage of mass-reared codling moths (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) on subsequent flight capacity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Flight capacity of codling moths, Cydia pomonella (Linnaeus) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), was measured with computer-linked flight mills following exposure to one of two temperature regimes. Codling moth adults were held for 24 hours before flight under either chilled (2 °C) or unchilled (24 °C) conditions. The chilling treatment emulated conditions that codling moths are exposed to pre-release in the Okanagan Sterile Insect Release (SIR) Programme. Moths were assayed on flight mills for eight hours to obtain a measure of flight capacity based on total flight distance. Energy use was assessed by weight loss during flight and post-flight body lipid content compared with similarly treated moths that did not fly. Flight distance did not vary with pre-flight temperature treatment, however moth pre-flight weight influenced flight capacity; heavier moths flew further. Moths chilled before the bioassay used less energy based on reduced weight loss and higher lipid content post bioassay as compared with unchilled moths. The current cold storage procedure used in the SIR Programme does not negatively influence subsequent flight capacity and reduces energy use during flight. Codling moths can fly on average between 7–10km in an eight-hour flight mill bioassay and lipids, at least in part, are used to fuel flight.
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) | 0.002 | 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".