MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905188311 · doi:10.1093/jee/toy366

The Buckwheat Effect: A Biopesticide for Wireworm?

2018· article· en· W2905188311 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Yeritza L Bohorquez Ruiz, Ian M. Scott, Jeremy N. McNeil

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Economic Entomology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAllelopathy and phytotoxic interactions
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaWestern University
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsBiologyPolygonaceaePoaceaeHordeum vulgareAgronomyFagopyrumBiopesticideBotanyPesticide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Growing buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench. Caryophyllales: Polygonaceae) in rotation with potato and other vegetable crops has been reported to decrease the density of an invasive wireworm species (Agriotes sputator Linnaeus. Coleoptera: Elateridae) in Nova Scotia, Canada. It was predicted that the negative effects on wireworm populations result from phytochemicals by buckwheat that act as deterrents, anti-feedants, or toxins in the roots or when released into the soil. Choice assays were conducted to test the attractiveness of germinating, branching, and flowering buckwheat, red spring wheat (Triticum aestivum Linnaeus. Poales: Poaceae) and island barley (Hordeum vulgare Linnaeus. Poales: Poaceae) to the larvae. Twenty-one day, no choice feeding assays were conducted to determine change in mass and mortality of A. sputator larvae when fed buckwheat or barley. There was no evidence that the wireworms were deterred by buckwheat and the germinating stage of all three crops was the most attractive based on the 24-h choice assays. After the 21-d no choice feeding assays, no differences between hosts were observed; however, wireworm herbivory significantly reduced the growth of barley but not buckwheat. The findings from the no choice feeding assays suggest that buckwheat may produce anti-feedants, but longer term feeding assays and field trials are required to confirm this possibility.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.762
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 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

Citations12
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Economic EntomologySame topicAllelopathy and phytotoxic interactionsFrench-language works237,207