MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W267269034

Evidence for multiple origins of grape phylloxera (Daktulosphaira vitifoliae Fitch) (Hemiptera: Phylloxeridae) in South African vineyards

2005· article· en· W267269034 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
D. A. Downie

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Entomology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhylloxeraBiologyRange (aeronautics)CladeSubspeciesHaplotypeGenetic diversityPopulationBotanyEcologyPhylogenetic treeGeneticsRootstockGeneGenotypeDemography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.578
Threshold uncertainty score0.629

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAfrican EntomologySame topicInsect-Plant Interactions and ControlFrench-language works237,207