Abiotic characteristics and organic constituents of oviposition sites as oviposition attractants and stimulants for gravid female stable flies, <i>Stomoxys calcitrans</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Gravid female stable flies, Stomoxys calcitrans (L.) (Diptera: Muscidae), oviposit in many types of organic substrates, including animal feces, but there is limited information as to which factors mediate attraction and oviposition. Here, we (1) tested effects of oviposition site moisture and odor on attraction and oviposition by flies, and (2) selected a highly effective oviposition site (fly rearing medium) to determine the key constituent(s) that mediate(s) attraction and oviposition. In moving‐ and still‐air olfactometers as well as large laboratory rooms, we show that (1) odor and moisture of oviposition sites play distinguishable functional roles in the close‐range attraction of gravid female flies and their propensity to oviposit, (2) rearing medium containing fish food, wheat bran, wood chips, and a watery solution of ammonium bicarbonate [(NH4)HCO₃, releasing NH3 and CO2] is a more appealing oviposition site to female flies than is cow feces, (3) ammonium bicarbonate in this medium is the key constituent for stable fly attraction and oviposition, (4) NH3 alone or in combination with CO2, but not CO2 alone, attracts stable flies and induces oviposition, and (5) NH3/CO2 and fish food in combination are more attractive than NH3/CO2 or fish food alone. With fecal bacteria reportedly emitting NH3, and with stable fly larval development reportedly reliant on (fecal) microbes, it follows that gravid female flies may be guided by airborne microbe‐derived cues originating from prospective oviposition sites. Isolating these microbes and identifying their odorants could enable the development of a synthetic odor blend which, coupled with NH3 and CO2, may prove highly effective as a trap lure to capture gravid female stable flies.
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".