Comparative Study of <i>Mecinus Janthiniformis</i> (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) Attack and Simulated Mowing for Control of <i>Linaria Dalmatica</i> Spp. <i>Dalmatica</i> (Plantaginaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dalmatian toadflax, Linaria dalmatica spp. dalmatica (L.) Mill. (Plantaginaceae) has invaded over one million hectares in the western United States and Canada, in habitats similar to its native range. Two field studies were conducted to examine the impact of simulated mowing or insect herbivory on L. dalmatica growth and reproduction. Simulated mowing over the duration of the study decreased L. dalmatica total biomass per square meter, significantly reduced the total number of fruits and flowers per square meter, and resulted in significantly shorter flowering stems in the simulated mowing plots than in their controls. Plants in plots attacked by Mecinus janthiniformis Toševski and Caldara (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) had significantly less biomass per square meter, significantly fewer total numbers of fruits and flowers per square meter, and significantly fewer reproductive structures per stem than plants in paired control plots over the duration of the study. Specifically, both management tactics resulted in a negative impact on this invasive plant. With repeated tissue removal or damage, a reduction in numbers of fruits and flowers per stem on both the stems subjected to simulated mowing and Mecinus-attacked stems relative to their controls suggests that long term stress effects on the plants may be similar. The results of these studies suggest that mowing may warrant further evaluation as a possible method of control in areas where M. janthiniformis release is not effective.
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) | 0.000 | 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".