Biology and Nutritional Indexes of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Saccharine Sorghum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Saccharine sorghum has been analyzed as a supplementary prime matter for ethanol production, especially during the sugarcane off-season period. However, it has proven to be highly susceptible to insect attacks during the cultivation cycle. The fall armyworm should be emphasized due to its voracity and high damage capacity enhanced by feeding-caused decrease in photosynthetic area. Current analysis studies the biology and determines the nutritional indexes of Spodoptera frugiperda in saccharine sorghum. Cultivars of saccharine sorghum BRS 506, BRS 509 and BRS 511were evaluated. Duration and survival of the egg, caterpillar, pre-pupal and pupal phases were determined, coupled to weight of pupae and caterpillar, life span, fecundity and pre-egg laying period. Although S. frugiperda completed its life cycle on cultivars BRS 506 and BRS 511, egg-laying and egg feasibility rates were low, whereas insects did not lay eggs on cultivar BRS 509. There was no significant difference in feeding intake by S. frugiperda among these three sorghum cultivars. Results suggest that saccharine sorghum is not a suitable host for S. frugiperda. Biological data reveal that the three saccharine sorghum cultivars are recommended for the grain production system since the number of specimens of the next generation is low or null.
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) | 0.001 | 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".