Insecticide resistance and cross‐resistance development in Colorado potato beetle <i>Leptinotarsa decemlineata</i> Say (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) populations in Canada 2008–2011
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A survey of insecticide resistance in over 150 Canadian populations of Colorado potato beetle was completed between 2008 and 2011. Three neonicotinoid and two anthranilic diamide insecticides were tested at a discriminating concentration (DC) with second-instar larvae in a leaf-disc bioassay. RESULTS: The mean mortality for the imidacloprid (Admire) DC was 46-67% between 2008 and 2011 respectively. Over the 4 years, 10-46% and 26-40% of the populations were classified as resistant or showed reduced susceptibility to imidacloprid. The mean mortality for thiamethoxam (Actara) and clothianidin (Poncho/Titan) ranged from 56-76% in 2008 to 81-84% in 2010 for each insecticide respectively, indicating continuous susceptibility to clothianidin but reduced susceptibility to thiamethoxam. In 2008 and 2009, susceptibility to chlorantraniliprole (Coragen) was observed in 85% of populations. Similarly, cyantraniliprole (Cyazypyr) affected 93% of the 2009 and 74% of the 2010 populations. There was a significant (P < 0.05) and high positive correlation (R = 0.4-0.84) between the three neonicotinoids, indicating the potential for cross-resistance. CONCLUSIONS: The trend observed in decreasing susceptibility for thiamethoxam and clothianidin will continue unless resistance management practices are followed.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".