Influence of Host Plant Species and Fertilization Regime on Larval Performance and Feeding Preference of the Redbacked Cutworm and the Pale Western Cutworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The redbacked cutworm, Euxoa ochrogaster (Guenée), and the pale western cutworm, Agrotis orthogonia (Morrison), are generalist pests that cause sporadic economic damage to several annual crops in the Canadian Prairies. Early larval instars feed on foliage, whereas mature larvae eat into the stem and sever crop seedlings. Here, we evaluate the influence of annual crop species and host fertilization on the larval performance and feeding preference of both cutworm species. Performance is the ability of an insect to reach its maximum growth potential. The first set of experiments evaluated larval development and preference on canola (Brassica napus L. [Capparales: Brassicaeae]), field peas (Pisum sativa L. [Fabales: Fabaceae]), and spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L. [Cyperales: Poaceae]). The redbacked cutworm had higher performance on canola and peas, while the pale western cutworm had higher performance on wheat. In multiple-choice feeding experiments, the redbacked cutworm consumed more canola, whereas the pale western cutworm consumed more spring wheat. The third set of experiments evaluated larval development on fertilized and unfertilized seedlings of canola and spring wheat seedlings. When fed unfertilized seedlings, the redbacked cutworm had better performance on canola than spring wheat, whereas pale western cutworm had better performance on spring wheat than canola. Fertilizer application enhanced the performance of both cutworms regardless of the crop species. Despite their generalist feeding behavior, both cutworm species have a larval feeding preference for the host plant on which they achieve high performance. Canola-cereal cropping is a common crop rotation schedule in the region; however, this tactic will not negatively impact cutworm performance.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".