MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911451946 · doi:10.1093/jisesa/iey130

Evaluation of Two Potential Biological Control Agents Against the Foxglove Aphid at Low Temperatures

2018· article· en· W2911451946 on OpenAlexaff
Ymilie Bellefeuille, Marc Fournier, Éric Lucas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Insect Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAphidBiologyAphididaeBiological pest controlLarvaHemipteraPEST analysisBotanyHorticultureAgronomyToxicologyHomoptera

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The foxglove aphid, Aulacorthum solani Kaltenbach (Hemiptera: Aphididae), has become a significant pest in horticulture as it can up build high populations from 10 to 18°C. Currently, chemical control is used as no commercially available biocontrol agent is effective at these temperatures. In this study, two potential biocontrol agents were evaluated: the silverfly, Leucopis glyphinivora Tanasijtshuk (Diptera: Chamaemyiidae), and the American hoverfly, Eupeodes americanus (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Syrphidae). Active flight, oviposition, and larval voracity were tested at 12, 15, and 18°C. The proportion of individuals demonstrating flight decreased at 12°C for the hoverfly and decreased at 15 and 12°C for the silverfly. Delay before active flight was greater for both species at 12°C. More hoverflies laid eggs after 7 d at all temperatures (12, 15, and 18°C) compared with silverflies. Hoverflies laid a higher number of eggs than silverflies at all temperatures. When given an additional 7 d at 12°C, oviposition increased for both species. Daily aphid consumption decreased as temperature decreased for both species, but average total aphid consumption did not decrease regardless of the temperature. This means that larval voracity for both the silvery and the American hoverfly was similar at all temperatures (12, 15, and 18°C) when considering aphid development. Hoverfly larvae consumed two times more aphids than silverfly larvae at all temperatures. This study demonstrates a clear superiority of the hoverfly over the silverfly at low temperatures and identifies it as a potential biocontrol agent of the foxglove aphid.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations32
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Insect ScienceSame topicInsect-Plant Interactions and ControlFrench-language works237,207