Larval development and voracity of <i>Eupeodes americanus</i> (Diptera: Syrphidae): comparison of the focal prey <i>Aphis gossypii</i> (Hemiptera: Aphididae) and the banker prey <i>Rhopalosiphum padi</i> (Hemiptera: Aphididae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unlike European species, the potential of Nearctic syrphids as biological control agents is still poorly studied. However, the American hoverfly, Eupeodes americanus (Wiedemann), has recently demonstrated promising traits as a biocontrol agent, notably against the foxglove aphid, Aulacorthum solani Kaltenbach, on pepper. The present study aims to extend our knowledge of the American hoverfly by evaluating its potential as a biocontrol agent in a banker plant system against the melon aphid, Aphis gossypii Glover, in a greenhouse cucumber crop. The preimaginal development and voracity of E. americanus were compared when preying upon the focal prey/pest (A. gossypii) or the banker prey (bird cherry-oat aphid, Rhopalosiphum padi L.) by daily observations of larvae from egg to adult. Preimaginal development time, survival rate, and occurrence of deformation were similar on both prey species. The weight of third instar and pupae, however, was higher for larvae that fed on the banker prey. The ad libitum voracity of the syrphid larvae was generally very high and did not significantly differ between prey species, except for the third-instar larvae which consumed more focal prey. Results suggest that a banker plant system involving the bird cherry-oat aphid may be a promising tactic for utilizing E. americanus for melon aphid biocontrol.
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".