Review: classical biological control of invasive stink bugs with egg parasitoids – what does success look like?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the enemy release hypothesis forms the theoretical basis for classical (=importation) biological control of invasive pests, its core assumptions are not always examined. This could contribute to unrealistic expectations for some biological control programs. In this paper we examine the assumptions that: (i) enemy release has contributed to the invasive nature of four exotic pentatomids in North America; and (ii) classical biological control with egg parasitoids has been or will be successful in reducing populations of these pests below economically significant levels. First, we review the history of biological control programs against invasive stink bugs to highlight the variable and controversial levels of success of introducing egg parasitoids against stink bugs. Then, we use simple stage-structured matrix models to demonstrate that it may be easy to overestimate the contribution of egg parasitism alone to a reduction in stink bug population growth. Finally, we discuss what realistic expectations might be for success of biological control against invasive stink bugs using egg parasitoids in the context of integrated pest management programs. © 2020 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada Pest Management Science © 2020 Society of Chemical Industry.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".