Evidence for multiple origins of grape phylloxera (Daktulosphaira vitifoliae Fitch) (Hemiptera: Phylloxeridae) in South African vineyards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ancestry of introduced populations can be inferred from gene genealogies if an adequate sample can be obtained, and population structure can be elucidated, from the native range. Grape phylloxera was introduced to South Africa in the late 19th century and has caused considerable damage in this country, as elsewhere. A previous study suggested a single introduction to South Africa, independent of those in other viticultural regions of the globe. Here, a more extensive sampling of South African vineyards was obtained to test the hypothesis of a single introduction and infer the geographic and host plant source, or sources, of introductions. Genetic diversity was low, though in 36 samples 10 mitochondrial haplotypes were observed, seven unique and only two common. Some differentiation between grape phylloxera among the three populations was observed. Two clades were found, differing by a number of substitutions. Both these haplotype clades are closely related to grape phylloxera collected from the native grapevine, Vitis riparia, from the northern United States of America and Canada. The results suggest at least two introductions, and the differentiation of one of the South African haplotype clades from other introduced populations around the world suggests a direct introduction from the native range.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".