MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3005263715 · doi:10.1093/amt/tsaa018

Evaluation of Torac, Warrior, and Coragen for First-Generation Colorado Potato Beetle Management in Wisconsin, 2019

2020· article· en· W3005263715 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Benjamin Z Bradford, Scott A Chapman, Russell L. Groves

Notice bibliographique

RevueArthropod management tests · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueInsect Resistance and Genetics
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBiologyColorado potato beetleBotanyPEST analysis

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

This trial was performed to evaluate the first-generation Colorado potato beetle control of Torac and Torac + PBO Twin-Pack relative to industry standards and an untreated check. This trial was conducted at the University of Wisconsin’s Hancock Agricultural Research Station, located 1.1 miles west of Hancock, Wisconsin (44.112332°N, −89.534886°W), on a loamy sand soil in 2019. Potato Solanum tuberosum cv. ‘Yukon Gold’ B-size tubers were machine planted as a solid planting on April 16, 2019. Four replicates of eight experimental plots were arranged in an RCBD region. Plots measured two rows (6 ft) wide by 20 ft long. Plots were separated by one untreated guard row and 8 ft of tilled ground along rows. The entire trial measured 108 ft wide (including a 12 ft drive alley along the center) by 120 ft long. Standard fertilizer inputs and fungicide treatments were applied to maintain plant health. Experimental insecticide treatments included Torac at a low and high rate, Torac + piperonyl butoxide (PBO), Torac + Warrior II, Warrior II, and Coragen. All treatments included either Silwet, NuFilm P, or methylated seed oil (MSO) added at 0.25% v/v as adjuvants. Foliar applications were performed on Jun 19 after 50% CPB egg hatch was observed, and reapplied 7 d later on Jun 26. Applications were made using a CO2-pressurized backpack sprayer operating at 30 psi, equipped with a 6 ft boom with 4 flat-fan nozzles (TeeJet XR8002VS) spaced 18 in. apart, and delivering 20 gal/ac while travelling at 3.5 ft/s Colorado Potato Beetle (CPB), Leptinotarsa decemlineata, populations were assessed on 10 randomly selected plants in the center of each plot for the following life stages: adults, egg masses, small larvae (first and second instars), and large larvae (third and fourth instars). CPB counts were performed 2, 6, 13, 22, and 27 d after initial foliar treatment applications. Insect counts were log(x + 1) transformed and percent defoliation ratings were arcsine square root transformed prior to statistical analysis to satisfy assumptions of normality. Treatment main effects were determined using ANOVA. Means separation letter codes were generated using Tukey’s HSD procedure (α = 0.05). All plots achieved high levels of emergence and colonization and no signs of phytotoxicity were observed among any of the treatments. First-generation (21 Jun, 25 Jun, 2 Jul) CPB adult counts were generally low and did not vary significantly between treatments (Table 1), except on 2 Jul (P = 0.03). Second-generation (11 Jul, 16 Jul) adult counts were higher on 11 Jul in the experimental treatments relative to the check and significantly higher on 16 Jul (P < 0.0001) due to complete defoliation of the check plots by that time. Peak small larvae (first and second instar) activity occurred on 21 Jun, 25 Jun, and 2 Jul (Table 2), with the Torac + Warrior II treatment performing significantly better than the check on 21 Jun (P = 0.05), the Torac + PBO, Torac + Warrior II, and Coragen treatments outperforming the check on 25 Jun (P = 0.01), and only the Coragen treatment outperforming the check on 2 Jul (P < 0.0001). Peak large larvae activity was observed on 2 Jul and 11 Jul (Table 3), with only the Coragen treatment outperforming the check on 2 Jul (P < 0.0001). On 11 Jul, both the Torac + PBO and Coragen treatments kept large larvae numbers significantly lower than the other experimental treatments (P < 0.0001), but the untreated check plots were completely defoliated at this point, so no comparison to the check can be made for this date. Large differences in plot defoliation were observed starting on 2 Jul (Table 4), with all experimental treatments performing significantly better than the check (P < 0.0001). On 11 Jul, the check plots were completely defoliated, while the lowest defoliation was observed in the Torac + PBO, Torac (high rate), and Coragen plots (P<.0001). By 16 Jul, only the Coragen treatment was maintaining low levels of defoliation (5%), with all other treatments greater than 50% defoliation (P < 0.0001). Overall the Coragen treatment had the best performance well into the second generation, followed by the Torac + PBO treatment, which began to fail by the last count date (16 Jul).1 Means followed by same letter code are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05). *P-value followed by an asterisk indicates a significant block effect. aUntreated plots were completely defoliated by 11 Jul. Means followed by same letter code are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05). *P-value followed by an asterisk indicates a significant block effect. aUntreated plots were completely defoliated by 11 Jul. Means followed by same letter code are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05) aUntreated plots were completely defoliated by 11 Jul. Means followed by same letter code are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05) aUntreated plots were completely defoliated by 11 Jul. Means followed by same letter code are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05) aUntreated plots were completely defoliated by 11 Jul. Means followed by same letter code are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05) aUntreated plots were completely defoliated by 11 Jul. Means followed by same letter code are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05). *P-value followed by an asterisk indicates a significant block effect. aUntreated plots were completely defoliated by 11 Jul. Means followed by same letter code are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05). *P-value followed by an asterisk indicates a significant block effect. aUntreated plots were completely defoliated by 11 Jul.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,036
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,071

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,031
Tête enseignante GPT0,288
Écart entre enseignants0,257 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueArthropod management testsMême sujetInsect Resistance and GeneticsTravaux en français237 207