Hybridization in heliothine moths: impacts on reproduction, pheromone communication, and pest management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heliothine moths (Family Noctuidae : Subfamily Heliothinae) are ubiquitous crop pests with three documented species combinations known to hybridize: Helicoverpa zea x Helicoverpa armigera, H. armigera x Helicoverpa assulta, and Heliothis virescens x Heliothis subflexa. Hybrids can have advantageous traits, such as increased host range, resistance to insecticides, and increased mating success, posing serious threats to agriculture. However, deleterious traits of hybrids, such as developmental abnormalities or sterility, can be exploited for pest management. In this review, the characteristics of F1 hybrids and backcrosses are examined through a historical lens. Topics reviewed include developmental characteristics, sex pheromone synthesis and perception, mating and calling behavior, sperm morphology, gene expression, electrophysiological responses, structures of the central and peripheral nervous systems, hybrid sterility, and applications in pest control. Recommendations for future studies based on existing gaps of knowledge are given, as are proposed pest management strategies.
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 | 0.001 | 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".