Toxicity of spinosad and <i>Beauveria bassiana</i> to the black cutworm, and the additivity of subletal doses
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The main objective of this study was to assess the susceptibility of the black cutworm (Agrotis ipsilon) to the biopesticide spinosad and to a commercial formulation (GHA strain) of the entomopathogenic fungus, Beauveria bassiana. Secondly, we quantified the effects of sublethal doses of spinosad on a number of A. ipsilon fitness parameters, and interactions resulting from simultaneous applications of sub-lethal doses of spinosad and B. bassiana. Under laboratory conditions, A. ipsilon third instar larvae were highly susceptible to spinosad, with an estimated LC50 of 50 ppm. The entomopathogenic fungus, B. bassiana had a lower efficacy with an estimated LC50 of 7×107 spores mL−1. Topical applications of 5, 7.5 and 10 ppm of spinosad on third instar larvae reduced larval size and increased time to pupation and to emergence. However, pupal and adult weights were not significantly different between treated and control individuals. Additivity was observed from most spinosad–B. bassiana combinations tested, thus indicating compatibility between products. We concluded that spinosad is a promising tool for controlling black cutworm larvae alone or in combination with other products.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it