Survival of <i>Helicoverpa armigera</i> larvae on and Bt toxin expression in various parts of transgenic Bt cotton (Bollgard <scp>II</scp>) plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There is no conclusive evidence that Helicoverpa spp. (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Australia have evolved significant levels of resistance to Bollgard II® cotton (which expresses two Bt toxin genes, cry1Ac and cry2Ab). However, there is evidence of surviving larvae on Bollgard II cotton in the field. The distribution and survival of early‐instar Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) larvae were examined on whole Bollgard II and non‐Bt cotton plants in greenhouse bioassays. The expression of Cry toxins in various parts of Bollgard II plants was compared to the survival of larvae in those locations. Only 1% of larvae survived after 6 days on greenhouse‐grown Bollgard II plants compared to 31% on non‐Bt cotton plants. Overall, and across all time intervals, more larvae survived on reproductive parts (squares, flowers, and bolls) than on vegetative parts (leaves, stems, and petioles) on Bollgard II plants. The concentration of Cry1Ac toxin did not differ between plant structures, whereas Cry2Ab toxin differed significantly, but there was no relationship between the level of expression and the location of larvae. This study provides no evidence that lower expression of Cry toxins in the reproductive parts of plants explains the survival of H. armigera larvae on Bollgard II cotton.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".