Seasonal fluctuation and alternative host plants of vegetable crop-infesting tephritids in non-vegetable growing areas in South Sudanese zone of Burkina Faso
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was carried out in 3 types of biotopes where vegetable crops are not grown to highlight their contribution to the dynamics of vegetable-infesting flies. To this end, a trapping system based on a sexual attractant, the Cuelure associated with an insecticide was set up in 18 biotopes (6 natural areas, 6 mango orchards, and 6 agroforestry parks) in the regions of Hauts Bassins and Cascades in the South-West of Burkina Faso. During the trapping monitoring, which was done every 2 wk to collect insects captured, fruits present in 3 types of biotopes were sampled and incubated for insect emergence. Ten Dacus (Fabricius) [Diptera: Tephritidae] species and Zeugodacus cucurbitae (Coquillett) [Diptera: Tephritidae] were trapped in the study area. The predominant species captured was Z. cucurbitae (52.93%) followed by Dacus punctatifrons (Karsch) [Diptera: Tephritidae] (29.89%) and Dacus humeralis (Bezzi) (12.71%). Six tephritid species were emerged from 6 wild fruit species belonging to Cucurbitaceae, Apocynaceae, and Passifloraceae families. Fruit flies were more abundant from Jul to Nov with peaks observed in Aug or Oct depending on the species. Citrullus colocynthis L. (Cucurbitaceae), Lagenaria sp. (Cucurbitaceae), Passiflora foetida L. (Passifloraceae), and Passiflora sp. acted as reservoir host plants of Dacus ciliatus (Loew), Dacus bivittatus (Bigot), Dacus vertebratus (Bezzi) [Diptera: Tephritidae], D. punctatifrons, and Z. cucurbitae, the major vegetable insect pests in West Africa. The 3 types of biotopes acted as suitable refuge areas of vegetable crop-infesting fruit flies either for the favorable microclimate or for the alternative host plants.
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".