Effects of a kaolin‐based particle film on oviposition and feeding of gypsy moth (Lep., Lymantriidae) and forest tent caterpillar (Lep., Lasiocampidae) in the laboratory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: In the laboratory we investigated a kaolin‐based crop protectant, Surround® WP, that was mixed in a spray carrier (94% water, 2% methanol, 4% Triton X100) and applied as particle film against gypsy moth Lymantria dispar (L.) and forest tent caterpillar Malacosoma disstria Hubner. Paired‐choice feeding tests showed that gypsy moth larvae were significantly (P < 0.05) less disposed to feed on red oak Quercus rubrus L. treated with high concentrations (60 and 120 g/l carrier) of kaolin than on untreated foliage. There was no significant difference (P > 0.05) between gypsy moth's consumption of kaolin‐treated and untreated red oak when given a single food choice, but the adults were less inclined to oviposit on the kaolin‐treated surfaces than on controls. However, no kaolin treatment completely deterred gypsy moth feeding or oviposition. Kaolin particle film did not influence forest tent caterpillar feeding and there were insufficient data to evaluate the effect of kaolin on the species' oviposition. The spray carrier did not increase the efficacy of the kaolin, but as an independent, albeit impractical treatment it constrained feeding by both insect species but did not affect gypsy moth oviposition. These initial laboratory findings suggest that applying kaolin‐based particle film to forests would present significant challenges; but if these could be surmounted, the technique might assist in the management of gypsy moth but not likely in that of forest tent caterpillar.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".