Herbivore‐induced plants do not affect oviposition but do affect fitness of subsequent herbivores on canola
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The diamondback moth (DBM), Plutella xylostella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae), is oligophagous on plants in the Brassicaceae, and is considered one of the most significant insect pests of canola (Brassica napus L.), a major oilseed crop grown in the Prairie Provinces of Canada. The bertha armyworm (BAW), Mamestra configurata Walker (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), is a generalist herbivore that preferentially feeds on canola plants. In the canola growing season in the Prairie Provinces of Canada, DBM feeding occurs prior to BAW herbivory. In this study, we test the effect of DBM herbivory on subsequent host use by BAW. Oviposition by female BAW was not influenced by previous DBM‐herbivory or mechanical damage of canola plants. Bertha armyworm larvae were deterred from feeding on canola previously damaged by DBM and larvae developed into lighter pupae when reared on DBM‐damaged plants. Bertha armyworm pupae that developed from larvae fed on mechanically damaged plants had similar pupal weights to those fed undamaged plants. Adult BAW reared on canola with previous DBM feeding damage had marginally smaller wings than moths reared on canola treated differently. The combination of these results suggests that herbivory by the brassicaceous specialist, DBM, negatively influences host use and larval performance by the generalist, BAW, on canola.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".