MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3101068925 · doi:10.3390/insects11110780

Oviposition, Feeding Preferences and Distribution of Delia Species (Diptera: Anthomyiidae) in Eastern Canadian Onions

2020· article· en· W3101068925 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Julia J. Mlynarek, Maggie MacDonald, Kathrin A. Sim, Kim Hiltz, Mary Ruth McDonald, Suzanne Blatt

Bibliographic record

VenueInsects · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversity of AlbertaEspace pour la vieAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersBishop's University
KeywordsAnthomyiidaeBiologyBotanyEntomologyZoologyPEST analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Delia antiqua, Delia platura and Delia florilega are three root maggot species commonly considered pests in Eastern Canadian onions. The onion maggot, D. antiqua, is considered the primary root maggot pest in onion but it remains unclear whether the other two species are also causing damage. In order to develop updated management strategies for root maggot, we tested adult oviposition and feeding preference by Delia larvae on four growth stages of onion using bioassays and we determined the Delia species composition across the four major onion growing regions in eastern Canada. Delia species oviposit readily on onion at the 5–7 true leaf growth stage but damage on onions is not statistically different between Delia species in our zero-inflated models. The four eastern Canadian onion growing regions have different proportions of Delia species. Southern Ontario and Quebec were the only two regions where Delia antiqua was collected. The highest average numbers of Delia spp. were caught in Quebec and Nova Scotia. Our study shows that timing is important in implementation of management strategies for root maggot in Eastern Canadian onions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.363
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.130 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInsectsSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207