A New Look at Cultivar Preference in Hoplocampa testudinea (Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae) on Apple in the Annapolis Valley of Nova Scotia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: The European apple sawfly, Hoplocampa testudinea Klug (Hymenoptera: Tenthredinidae), can be an economically important pest in eastern Canada and shows preference for apple cultivars in Nova Scotia, Canada. We hypothesized that this preference could be due to oviposition by female H. testudinea (preference-performance hypothesis) during the bloom period or differential larval survival during development due to fruitlet physicochemical properties. (2) Methods: Fifteen commercial and experimental apple (Malusdomestica Borkh.; Rosaceae) cultivars located at the Kentville Research and Development Centre (Kentville, Nova Scotia) were chosen and examined for H. testudinea oviposition, larval performance during fruitlet development, fruitlet physicochemical properties and damage assessment at harvest from 2016–2019, inclusive. (3) Results: H. testudinea showed significant cultivar preference during oviposition, during development and at harvest, but the ranking of these cultivars was not the same throughout the season. Total impact by H. testudinea was consistent for most cultivars over multiple years of the study. (4) Conclusion: Correlation of oviposition with damage provided weak evidence for the preference-performance hypothesis. We propose that this relationship is weak due to differential survival of larvae during development.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".