MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309043335 · doi:10.3389/fevo.2022.1021795

Differential responses of Bactrocera dorsalis and its parasitoids to headspaces of different varieties of tree-attached mango fruits and the associated chemical profiles

2022· article· en· W4309043335 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Ecology and Evolution · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect behavior and control techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDirektoratet for UtviklingssamarbeidInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsBactrocera dorsalisBraconidaeBiologyBiological pest controlParasitoidPEST analysisHymenopteraHorticultureContext (archaeology)Integrated pest managementBotanyTephritidaePest controlHost (biology)AgronomyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) is a major pest of fruits and vegetables worldwide with documented losses of up to 100%. Various management techniques including the use of parasitoids, such as Fopius arisanus (Sonan) and Diachasmimorpha longicaudata (Ashmead) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) within the context of the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach have been deployed for its control. The effectiveness of parasitoids is well understood, but knowledge of the semiochemicals that mediate their behavior, as well as that of the host fruit fly to tree-attached mangoes, is lacking. Here, we first compared the attractiveness of the above-mentioned fruit fly and its parasitoids to volatiles of different treatments (non-infested physiologically mature unripe and ripe mangoes, mangoes newly exposed to ovipositing B. dorsalis , and mangoes on day 7 and day 9 post-oviposition) of tree-attached Kent, Apple, and Haden mango varieties relative to control (clean air). The fruit fly was significantly more attracted to the mango volatiles (up to 93% of responsive insects) compared to the control (clean air). Fopius arisanus was significantly more attracted to mangoes with ovipositing fruit flies (68–76%) while D. longicaudata was significantly more attracted to day 9 post-oviposited mangoes (64–72%) compared to the control. Secondly, we elucidated the headspace volatile profiles of the non-infested and infested tree-attached mangoes using gas chromatography linked to mass spectrometry (GC-MS). The volatiles revealed various types of organic compounds with qualitative and quantitative differences. The majority of the compounds were esters making 33.8% of the total number, followed by sesquiterpenes-16.4%, and monoterpenes-15.4% among others. Most compounds had higher release rates in headspace volatiles of fruit fly-infested mangoes. Lastly, we harvested the infested mangoes and incubated them for puparia recovery. The number of puparia recovered varied according to the mango variety with Apple mango registering 81.7% of the total, while none was recovered from Kent. These results represent the first report of the changes in the headspace components of non-infested and infested tree-attached mangoes and the associated differential responses of the mentioned insects. A follow-up study can reveal whether there is a convergence in olfactomes which is significant when developing baits that selectively attract the fruit fly and not its natural enemies and fill the knowledge gap from an evolutionary ecological perspective.

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.

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 score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.205 · 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