Short-Term Increases in Aphid Dispersal From Defensive Dropping Do Not Necessarily Affect Long-Term Biological Control by Parasitoids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Foxglove aphid (Aulacorthum solani (Kaltenbach) (Hemiptera: Aphididae)) is one of the principal aphid pests of greenhouse ornamental crops in North America. Biological control of foxglove aphid mostly relies on the use of Aphidius ervi Haliday (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). However, studies indicate that A. ervi may not be adapted to search for A. solani, and that in response to parasitoid attack aphids can drop and/or disperse, which may aggravate an infestation. Our goal was to further describe the searching behavior of A. ervi in the presence of foxglove aphids, the corresponding defensive behavior of foxglove aphid and the short- and medium-term effects on both pest dispersal and control by A. ervi. Behavioral observations were done on top and bottom leaves infested with foxglove aphid and a high release rate of A. ervi. Parasitoids tended to land on top leaves; however, more aphids were parasitized on bottom leaves, leading to equal numbers of parasitoid attacks in both locations. Most aphids dropped off the plant in the presence of a parasitoid. In large cage experiments, aphids were allowed to distribute naturally and A. ervi was released. The parasitoid still caused a high rate of aphid dropping. However, only a few aphids were able to successfully reach new plants, and most of these mummified over time. Our studies confirm that parasitoid-induced dispersal of foxglove aphid in greenhouse crops does occur, but also suggests this should not necessarily be a barrier to adoption of biological control, as A. ervi controls the aphids over time.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".