Something old, something new: revisiting the diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) life table after 65 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Nearly 65 years ago, D.G. Harcourt developed the first of 74 life tables of the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (Linnaeus) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae), on the Central Experimental Farm in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada and at nearby sites. This work is cited whenever authors discuss the life history of the diamondback moth and its parasitoids in Canada. Since Harcourt’s study, climate change, urbanisation, and crop diversity may have altered the population dynamics of both the diamondback moth and its natural enemy community in the original study area. To follow up on Harcourt’s work, we used two approaches to build life tables to describe mortality factors in the field and the natural enemies attacking diamondback moth in Ottawa: destructive sampling of mature cabbage, Brassica oleracea Linnaeus (Brassicaceae), plants similar to Harcourt’s approach and a modern sentinel-based approach with an enemy exclusion cage treatment. After 65 years, the primary parasitoids attacking diamondback moth remained the same, although more parasitoid diversity was revealed by the destructive sampling technique. Total mortality and parasitism levels also remained similar. In one notable difference, we attributed more diamondback mortality to predation. Overall, however, diamondback moth population dynamics have changed little in Ottawa in the decades since Harcourt’s studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".