MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898894781 · doi:10.11158/saa.23.10.15

An assemblage of predatory mites (Phytoseiidae) associated with a potential biocontrol agent (Cecidophyes rouhollahi; Eriophyidae) for weed Galium spurium (Rubiaceae)

2018· article· en· W2898894781 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Min Ma, Qing‐Hai Fan, Zhi‐Qiang Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic and Applied Acarology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGaliumEriophyidaeBiologyPhytoseiidaeWeedBiological pest controlBotanyMiteEcologyPredationPredator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The weed Galium aparine L., commonly known as cleavers or goose grass, is an exotic plant in New Zealand (Webb et al. 1988; Reid 1998). Craemer et al. (1999) described a new gall mite species, Cecidophyes rouhollahi Craemer (Acari: Eriophyidae), from this weed in France and suggested that this new species might have potential as a biological control agent against G. spurium L. in Canada and western US where the weed was becoming more problematic (Malik & Vanden Born 1988; Whitson 1991). This mite species was later shown to result in severe stunting and complete prevention of seed production in a related weed G. spurium in greenhouse tests and was approved for field release against this weed in Canada (Sobhian et al. 2004). This mite species was recently reported on G. aparine from Auckland, New Zealand (Martin 2017). Mites prefer feeding on the young terminal leaves and can induce the leaf edges to roll inwards and curl (Fig. 1A, B, E). Martin (2017) noted: “No natural enemies of this species of mite have been recorded, but predatory mites may feed on these mites”. We report here on an assemblage of predatory mites (Phytoseiidae) associated with C. rouhollahi on G. aparine in Auckland.

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 score0.728
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic and Applied AcarologySame topicInsect-Plant Interactions and ControlFrench-language works237,207