MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403150300 · doi:10.1007/s11829-024-10095-0

What do Lygus like? Looking for potential trap crops to reduce faba bean damage

2024· article· en· W4403150300 on OpenAlexafffund
Teresa Aguiar-Cordero, Héctor A. Cárcamo, Sean M. Prager

Bibliographic record

VenueArthropod-Plant Interactions · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetic and Environmental Crop Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaSaskatchewan Pulse GrowersWestern Grains Research FoundationMinistry of Agriculture - Saskatchewan
KeywordsTrap (plumbing)LygusAgronomyEnvironmental scienceAgroforestryBiologyBotanyEnvironmental engineeringMiridae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Grain legumes, such as faba bean (Vicia faba L.), are crucial for protein supply and soil fertility enhancement through nitrogen fixation. However, faba bean cultivation is challenged by Lygus plant bugs (Hemiptera: Miridae), which cause significant crop damage and seed quality loss. This study aimed to evaluate Lygus preferences between faba bean and alternative crops to develop effective management strategies. We conducted choice bioassay experiments under laboratory conditions and field plot experiments. Laboratory results indicated sex-based host preferences, with males favoring faba beans and females preferring canola. Field studies showed that faba beans adjacent to canola had higher Lygus abundance and damage compared to those next to peas, flax, and safflower. Safflower and sunflower demonstrated potential as trap crops to reduce Lygus damage to faba beans. Our findings provide insights into Lygus behavior and suggest that a combination of trap cropping, and targeted insecticide use could mitigate the impact of Lygus infestations on faba bean cultivation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthropod-Plant InteractionsSame topicGenetic and Environmental Crop StudiesFrench-language works237,207