Do farming practices influence the incidence of Childers canegrubs, <i>Antitrogus</i> <i>parvulus</i> Britton (Coleoptera : Scarabaeidae)?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impact of farming practices on numbers of Childers canegrubs was determined in southern Queensland by a survey of 441 field–year combinations that related practices to the numbers of second- and third-instar larvae in those fields, and by a field experiment that tested combinations of insecticide application, cultivation practices, and crop-residue retention on numbers of larvae and associated entomopathogens. There were significant differences in levels of infestation among years, soil types, crop ages, cultivars grown, insecticide-use strategies, crop-replacement strategies, intensity and frequency of tillage during crop replacement, and irrigation strategies. In the field trial, numbers of third-instar larvae declined as the larvae aged, probably through infection by the fungus Metarhizium anisopliae and the protozoan Adelina sp. Application at planting of the controlled-release insecticide suSCon Blue had an immediate effect on the number of larvae carried over from the previous crop cycle and this effect continued into the second-ratoon crop. The insecticide application increased cane and sugar yields, particularly in the first-ratoon crop. More intensive pre-planting tillage initially reduced numbers of larvae, but the effect did not continue into the ratoon crops. Management of crop residues had no consistent effect on numbers of larvae, but cane yields were higher and sugar content lower in the second-ratoon crop when residues were retained, and led to higher sugar yields where suSCon Blue had been applied. In general, long breaks between successive sugarcane crops, coupled with intensive tillage in that break and application of controlled-release insecticide, will reduce subsequent populations of larvae. The alternative strategy of herbicide destruction of the previous crop, long fallow with minimum tillage, replanting without controlled-release insecticide, and prudent use of transient insecticides in heavily infested ratoon crops will also minimise numbers and may allow better survival of entomopathogens. These strategies have been integrated into management practices attractive to growers.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".