MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1513761472 · doi:10.5539/jas.v7n10p1

Reduction of Crop Diversity Does Not Drive Insecticide Use

2015· article· en· W1513761472 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wan‐Ru Yang, Mike Grieneisen, Huajin Chen, Minghua Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural pest management studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrop diversityCropDiversity (politics)AgricultureBiodiversityDiversity indexGeographyEnvironmental scienceAgronomyAgroforestryEcologyBiologySpecies richness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reduction of crop diversity, on farm and landscape levels, has been suggested as a factor that leads to lower biodiversity in agricultural systems, and thus makes them more prone to pest damage. To determine whether the relationship between increase of corn production and reduction of crop diversity and the proportion of cropland treated with insecticide found previously in the Midwestern states is universally applicable, we applied spatial panel model analysis to USDA Agricultural Census data for 1997, 2002, 2007, and 2012 using county-level data for the entire continental USA. The 7 Midwestern states and the remaining 41 states were analyzed separately. Simpson’s diversity index was used as the metric for crop diversity. We also examined the effect of temperature, the proportion of all cropland that is corn and average crop market value as additional predictor variables. The results show that expansion of corn production, together with the market value of crop products, and accumulated amount of heat could be key factors driving the increase of acres treated with insecticide. This phenomenon is observed in the entire continental USA, indicating that it was not a reduction of crop diversity in general, but specifically the predominance of corn that is likely driving increased insecticide use in the Midwestern states in recent years.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicAgricultural pest management studiesFrench-language works237,207