Curative Control of<i>Scirtothrips dorsalis</i>(Thysanoptera: Thripidae) with Biological Insecticides, 2011
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The objectives of this study was 1) to evaluate the efficacy of the selected entomopathogens against a new invasive thrips pest, chilli thrips (CT), Scirtothrips dorsalis (Hood), in pepper, and 2) to compare potential of entomopathogens with a chemical standard. The trial was conducted at Tropical Research and Education Center in Homestead, FL, to find an alternative to standard effective chemistries used in thrips control. The peppers were grown in Fafard 2 Mix (Canadian Formula; Conrad Fafard, Inc., Agawam, MA) from seed in seedling trays and transplanted in 1 gal plastic pot when seedling were 7-wk old (approximately). Plants were watered as needed (∼3 times a week) and fertilized once each week with 20N: 20P: 20K granular fertilizer. The greenhouse was maintained at 26 ± 3°C and 75–80% RH. The trial was setup as RCB design with 12 replicates where treated pots were placed at 1.5 by 1.5 ft spacing. Treatments were applied as curative measure using a small hand held sprayer delivering 65.5 ml m 2 at 211 kPa (30.6 psi). Treatments were evaluated by carefully checking five top leaves of each pepper plant by direct count sampling method using 30x hand-held lens. Data were subjected to square root transformation prior to conducting the analysis of variance and mean separation procedure. The data presented are the untransformed means. Means separations were performed using the Tukey’s HSD test at P < 0.05. CT population varied greatly; however, significant reduction in thrips number was observed in all the treatments compared to control. Overall Radiant and PFR-97 were the most effective in controlling CT population (larvae and adults) throughout the study period. Chemical standard Radiant showed consistent result in regulating of CT larvae and provided 98–99% reduction on all the sampling dates ( Table 1 ). Entompathogens, such as PFR-97 (68–79%) and Met-52 (55–69%), also provided significant suppression of CT larvae during the study period. Botanigard (47–60%) was found to be the least effective. While evaluating different treatments for CT adults, Radiant and PFR 97 provided significant suppression in adults count compared to untreated control on all the sampling dates except DAT 15 for PFR 97 ( Table 2 ). Botanigard did not provide any significant reduction in CT adults. None of the insecticide treatments caused any phytotoxic effects on pepper. Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different ( P > 0.05, Tukey HSD test). Henderson–Tilton’s corrected percent mortality is presented in parentheses after each mean. Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different ( P > 0.05, Tukey HSD test). Henderson–Tilton’s corrected percent mortality is presented in parentheses after each mean. Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different ( P > 0.05, Tukey HSD test). Henderson–Tilton’s corrected percent mortality is presented in parentheses after each mean. Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different ( P > 0.05, Tukey HSD test). Henderson–Tilton’s corrected percent mortality is presented in parentheses after each mean.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».