MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896677502 · doi:10.1017/s0007485318000767

<i>Leucopis glyphinivora</i>Tanasijtshuk (Diptera: Chamaemyiidae), a new aphidophagous biocontrol agent; development, survival and comparison with<i>Aphidoletes aphidimyza</i>Rondani (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae)

2018· article· en· W2896677502 on OpenAlexafffund
Stephane Barriault, António O. Soares, Stephen D. Gaimari, Éric Lucas

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of Entomological Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyCecidomyiidaeMidgeMyzus persicaeAphidGallAphididaeBiological pest controlBotanyLarvaHorticulturePupaPEST analysisHomoptera

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The silver fly Leucopis glyphinivora Tanasijtshuk (Diptera: Chamaemyiidae) is an aphidophagous predator during its larval stage. Our study describes the life cycle of L. glyphinivora and evaluates its potential as a biocontrol agent. The development, survival and longevity of L. glyphinivora were observed and compared with those of the aphid gall midge Aphidoletes aphidimyza Rondani (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae). Tests were conducted under laboratory conditions in Petri dishes with the green peach aphid Myzus persicae Sulzer (Hemiptera: Aphididae) on potato leaves. Leucopis glyphinivora has a 42% longer life cycle than A. aphidimyza. Larval development was 27% longer in L. glyphinivora than in A. aphidimyza. Egg hatch rate and pupal emergence rate were similar in both species, but larval survival was 20% lower for L. glyphinivora than for A. aphidimyza. Sex ratio was approximately 50% in both species. A longer development time for L. glyphinivora in the larval stage could be an advantage for biocontrol by providing more time to exert predation pressure against aphids. However, this may be offset by the lower survival rate found in the silver fly larvae.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.247 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of Entomological ResearchSame topicInsect-Plant Interactions and ControlFrench-language works237,207