Host utilization by the pepper weevil ( <scp> <i> Anthonom <scp> <i>us eugenii</i> </scp> ): su </i> </scp> itability, preference and offspring performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Host plant selection is a key factor affecting the survival, population establishment, and spread of herbivorous insect pests. The pepper weevil is one of the most important pests of cultivated pepper in North America with a capacity to rapidly expand its geographic range, in part through its ability to switch between cultivated and wild Solanaceous host plants. Towards a better management of this pest, this study examined metrics of pepper weevil host use including oviposition preference, development time, and successful offspring emergence on wild Solanaceous species and cultivated pepper cultivars. RESULTS: Pepper weevil successfully developed within fruit of several Solanaceous species including eastern black (Solanum ptycanthum) and climbing nightshade (S. dulcamara), in which development time was on average 4 days faster relative to Capsicum annuum cv. jalapeno peppers. Oviposition events occurred in all fruit types assessed and no strong host preference was detected among these. However, the number of emerged offspring was significantly lower than the number of oviposition events in C. chinense cv. habanero pepper fruit. CONCLUSION: Although not all nightshade species are suitable hosts for pepper weevil development, those permissive to offspring production do allow for faster development than in C. annuum peppers. While host preference was not detected among fruit types tested, low offspring emergence from fruit with high capsaicin content suggests a reduced ability of pepper weevil to tolerate high concentrations of this metabolite. These findings help elucidate the factors influencing pepper weevil bionomics, and their implications on pepper weevil management are discussed. Published 2021. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
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".