Root-associated entomopathogenic fungi (R-AEF) indirectly influence herbivorous insect performance. However, host plant-R-AEF interactions and R-AEF as biological control agents have been studied independently and without much attention to the potential synergy between these functional traits. In this study, we evaluated behavioral responses of cabbage root flies [Delia radicum L. (Diptera: Anthomyiidae)] to a host plant (white cabbage cabbage Brassica oleracea var. capitata f. alba cv. Castello L.) with and without the R-AEF Metarhizium brunneum (Petch). We performed experiments on leaf reflectance, phytohormonal composition and host plant location behavior (behavioral processes that contribute to locating and selecting an adequate host plant in the environment). Compared to control host plants, R-AEF inoculation caused, on one hand, a decrease in reflectance of host plant leaves in the near-infrared portion of the radiometric spectrum and, on the other, an increase in the production of jasmonic, (+)-7-iso-jasmonoyl-L-isoleucine and salicylic acid in certain parts of the host plant. Under both greenhouse and field settings, landing and oviposition by cabbage root fly females were positively affected by R-AEF inoculation of host plants. The fungal-induced change in leaf reflectance may have altered visual cues used by the cabbage root flies in their host plant selection. This is the first study providing evidence for the hypothesis that R-AEF manipulate the suitability of their host plant to attract herbivorous insects.

Several forensic sciences, especially of the pattern-matching kind, are increasingly seen to lack the scientific foundation needed to justify continuing admission as trial evidence. Indeed, several have been abolished in the recent past. A likely next candidate for elimination is bitemark identification. A number of DNA exonerations have occurred in recent years for individuals convicted based on erroneous bitemark identifications. Intense scientific and legal scrutiny has resulted. An important National Academies review found little scientific support for the field. The Texas Forensic Science Commission recently recommended a moratorium on the admission of bitemark expert testimony. The California Supreme Court has a case before it that could start a national dismantling of forensic odontology. This article describes the (legal) basis for the rise of bitemark identification and the (scientific) basis for its impending fall. The article explains the general logic of forensic identification, the claims of bitemark identification, and reviews relevant empirical research on bitemark identification-highlighting both the lack of research and the lack of support provided by what research does exist. The rise and possible fall of bitemark identification evidence has broader implications-highlighting the weak scientific culture of forensic science and the law's difficulty in evaluating and responding to unreliable and unscientific evidence.