Field Efficacy and Baseline Toxicities of Pyriproxifen, Acetamiprid, and Diafenthiuron Against<i>Bemisia tabaci</i>Gennadius (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) in Burkina Faso (West Africa)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bioassays were conducted in 2001 and 2002 to estimate toxicities and dose-response relationships of 24 Bemisica tabaci Gennadius populations to pyriproxifen, acemitaprid, and diafenthiuron. LC50s ranging from 0.014 to 0.096 mgL(-1), 0.60 to 1.3 mgL(-1), and 3.5 to 6.7 mgL(-1) were observed respectively for pyriproxifen, acemitaprid, and diafenthiuron. These LC50s much lower than the field doses recommended for each compound. A fast increase in rates of mortality within a narrow range of lethal concentrations was observed for each compound. indicating that all three compounds were highly effective at killing whiteflies. In a separate experiment, pyriproxifen, acemitaprid, and diafenthiuron were tested in 2001 and 2002 to compare their effectiveness and assess their impact on parasitism in the field. In both years all three compounds significantly prevented B. tabaci populations from reaching economic injury levels in cotton and minimized adverse effects on parasitism. Our results provide for the first time baseline toxicological, field efficacy, and effect on parasitism data for pyriproxifen, acemitaprid, and diafenthiuron against B. tabaci in West Africa. These compounds should be included in a resistance management program of the cotton pest complex and their use should be restricted to prevent the building of resistance in B. tabaci populations.
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".