Relationships among root maggot (<i>Delia</i> spp., Diptera: Anthomyiidae) infestation, root injury, and seed yields of canola <i>Brassica napus</i> L. and <i>Brassica rapa</i> L.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the relationships between numbers of Delia species (Delia spp. Rob.-Desv., Diptera: Anthomyiidae) flies or eggs and root injury levels of Brassica napus L. and Brassica rapa L. (Brassicaceae) canola (oilseed rape), and between root injury levels and canola seed yields. Wild-collected Delia species adult flies or laboratory-obtained Delia radicum (L.) eggs were introduced into laboratory or field cages containing B. napus or B. rapa plants. The degree of root injury was strongly associated with infestation level using both flies and eggs. Linear response curves between numbers of Delia flies and root injury levels and quadrilinear response curves between numbers of D. radicum eggs and root injury levels showed that root damage increased with increasing levels of infestation; at high egg infestation levels, root damage levelled off in both Brassica species. Seed yield was not clearly related to fly or egg infestation rate, nor to ensuing root damage. No consistent yield relationship in B. napus ‘AC Excel’ was found with levels of root damage seen in the investigation. Conversely, B. rapa cultivar ‘AC Boreal’ seed yields tended to increase above uninfested controls when feeding damage was light but decreased with increased root injury. Despite procedures used to prevent infestation in Delia-free control cages, some root maggot damage was found in control cages in all 4 yr of the field study. Changes in climate, land use patterns, and cropping systems could influence the economic impact of this pest complex on canola in the future.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".