SOME BIOTIC LIMITING FACTORS OF DRYOCOSMUS KURIPHILUS (HYMENOPTERA CYNIPIDAE): A SURVEY IN CHESTNUT ORCHARDS NEAR FLORENCE (ITALY)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The biological control of the Asian Chinese gall wasp (ACGW) Dryocosmus kuriphilus, is influenced by several factors. In 2013, a survey was carried out in three chestnut orchards near Florence (Italy) to investigate ACGW parasitization by native parasitoids and the introduced Torymus sinensis. The following two methods were adopted: the first based on the dissection of cynipid galls with the aim of inspecting cells within each gall and the second based on monitoring adult emergence from galls. Parasitization patterns due to gall position related to plant height were also evaluated. Native parasitoids were more abundant in the upper part of tree crowns in June, while in July and August their activity was more evident in the middle and lower parts of chestnut trees. Conversely, parasitization of T. sinensis, was detected at all plant heights. Plant position within stands also affected the performance of both native parasitoids and T. sinensis, with parasitization that progressively decreasead moving toward the interior of the orchards. Gall necrosis was equally evaluated as a limiting factor of ACGW survival. Among the isolated fungal species, Gnomoniopsis castaneae (Tamietti), an endophyte fungus harmful to fruits, colonized both healthy and necrotic galls together with ubiquitous components of fungal communities such as Alternaria sp., Aspergillus sp., Fusarium sp. and Colletotrichum fioriniae. Our results evidenced that T. sinensis was able control the ACGW, while native parasitoids played only a secondary, though non-negligible, role. Conversely, gall necroses had a minor impact on pest control, as their efficacy was limited to the early stages of gall development. Key words: biodiversity, gall-inducing insects, native parasitoids, fungal species
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 | 0.001 | 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".