Large scale <i> <scp>A</scp> griotes </i> spp. click beetle ( <scp>C</scp> oleoptera: <scp>E</scp> lateridae) invasion of crop land from field margin reservoirs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mark–release–recapture was used to investigate the dispersal of click beetles in spring wheat or fallow fields using edge or centre field releases. Three types of pitfalls were used: gutter traps near field margins, as well as conventional pitfall traps or cross‐traps consisting of four gutter trap arms leading to a central pitfall. Capture of naturally occuring beetles was concurrently recorded. In total, 6952 marked A griotes obscurus (males and females) and A griotes lineatus (males) were released and 14.74% were recaptured at some time during the present study. Recovery rates ranged from 3.54% to 28.5%. A griotes obscurus dominated wild populations, with 4011 males and 1672 females trapped compared with 17 males and three females for A . lineatus . Males dominated early in the period, although the sex ratio tended towards equality as the season progressed. Generally, captures of A . obscurus males released in equal numbers at field edges followed a uniform distribution. There were differences for wild beetles caught in the same traps. Spatial trapping patterns of wild and marked beetles across the fields were similar. Within 19 h of release at the field edges A . obscurus males were captured >30 m away. The crop type had a significant interspecific effect on trap counts for males and an intraspecific effect on A . obscurus females, reinforcing the need for caution when using trapping systems to monitor adult stages of these pests. The results of the present study demonstrate that uncropped field margins comprise sources of click beetles. We also conclude that click beetles disperse much further than reported previously.
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".