MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308893977 · doi:10.1186/s43170-022-00136-0

A century of Azolla filiculoides biocontrol: the economic value of Stenopelmus rufinasus to Great Britain

2022· article· en· W4308893977 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Corin F. Pratt, Kate Constantine, Suzy V. Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueCABI Agriculture and Bioscience · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBiological Control of Invasive Species
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Centre for International Agricultural ResearchAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaMinistry of Agriculture of the People's Republic of ChinaDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK Government
KeywordsWeevilBiologyBiological pest controlInfestationFernToxicologyHorticultureGeographyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The invasive aquatic fern Azolla filiculoides has been present in Great Britain (GB) since the end of the nineteenth century, while its specialist natural enemy, the weevil Stenopelmus rufinasus was first recorded nearly four decades later, in 1921. The purpose of this study was to estimate the economic value of management cost savings resulting from the presence of S. rufinasus as a biocontrol agent of A. filiculoides in GB, including the value of additional augmentative releases of the weevil made since the mid-2000s, compared with the expected costs of control in the absence of S. rufinasus. Methods Estimated economic costs (based on the length/area of affected waterbodies, their infestation rates, and the proportion targeted for management) were calculated for three scenarios in which A. filiculoides occurs in GB: (1) without weevils; (2) with naturalised weevil populations; and (3) with naturalised weevil populations plus augmentative weevil releases. Results In the absence of biocontrol, the expected average annual costs of A. filiculoides management were estimated to range from £8.4 to 16.9 million (US$9.4 to 18.9 million) (£1 = US$1.12). The impacts of naturalised S. rufinasus populations on A. filiculoides were expected to reduce management costs to £0.8 to 1.6 million (US$0.9 to 1.8 million) per year. With additional augmentative releases of the weevil, A. filiculoides management costs were estimated to be lower still, ranging from £31.5 to 45.8 thousand (US$35.3 to 51.3 thousand) per year, giving an estimated benefit to cost ratio of augmentative S. rufinasus releases of 43.7:1 to 88.4:1. Conclusions The unintentional introduction of the weevil S. rufinasus to GB is estimated to have resulted in millions of pounds of savings annually in management costs for A. filiculoides. Additional augmentative releases of the weevil provide further net cost savings, tackling A. filiculoides outbreaks and bolstering naturalised populations. The use of herbicides in the aquatic environment is likely greatly reduced due to A. filiculoides biocontrol. Although somewhat climate-limited at present in GB, climate change may result in even more effective biocontrol of A. filiculoides by S. rufinasus as has been observed in warmer regions such as South Africa, where the plant is no longer considered a threat since the introduction of the weevil.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCABI Agriculture and BioscienceSame topicBiological Control of Invasive SpeciesFrench-language works237,207