Phenologies of Canada thistle (<i>Cirsium arvense</i>) and<i>Cirsium</i>species native to the upper Midwest: implications for the ecological host range of the biocontrol agent<i>Hadroplontus litura</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract NativeCirsiumspecies play an important role in landscapes across North America.Hadroplontus litura(F.) (formerlyCeutorhynchus litura), the stem-mining weevil and biological control agent of Canada thistle [Cirsium arvense(L.) Scop.] can complete its life cycle on fiveCirsiumspecies native to the upper Midwest. Although these fiveCirsiumspecies are within the fundamental host range ofH. litura, as determined by host-range tests, we wanted to explore whether phenological differences amongCirsiumspecies help define the field ecological host range ofH. litura. The objective of this study was to determine the phenology ofCirsiumspecies native to the upper Midwest in relation toC. arvenseandH. litura.Our goal was to explore whether shoots of nativeCirsiumspecies could escapeH. liturashoot oviposition in spring due to delayed shoot emergence relative toC. arvense. Soil cumulative growing degree days (GDD) were a superior predictor of shoot emergence for perennialCirsiumspecies or initiation of leaves in biennialCirsiumspecies, with a 2.4 times larger effect on time to emergence relative to air GDD. All nativeCirsiumspecies initiated new leaves or shoots beforeC. arvenseshoot emergence, even when nativeCirsiumspecies growth was delayed in the spring. In turn,C. arvenseshoots emerged approximately 1 to 3 wk before femaleH. liturabegan to lay eggs. As such, all nativeCirsiumplants had shoots available forH. lituraoviposition. There was no phenological separation between nativeCirsiumandC. arvenseshoot emergence or initiation that would render nativeCirsiumspecies safe fromH. lituraattack. Based on the phenology of shoot emergence or initiation in the spring, all testedCirsiumspecies native to the upper Midwest would be within the ecological host range ofH. litura.
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".