Simulated crop rotation systems control swede midge, <i>Contarinia nasturtii</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Contarinia nasturtii (Kieffer) (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae), a common insect pest in Europe and a new invasive pest in North America, causes severe damage to cruciferous crops. Many counties in Canada and the USA, in which C. nasturtii has not been previously reported, are at risk of being infested by C. nasturtii. Effectiveness of chemical control is limited, especially under high population pressure in fields. Alternative management strategies against C. nasturtii are sorely needed in order to protect crucifers. Under controlled laboratory conditions, the effectiveness on C. nasturtii control by 11 simulated cauliflower‐sweet corn and cauliflower‐kidney bean crop rotation systems was evaluated, with and without the presence of cruciferous weeds as alternative hosts. Our results indicated that when soil was infested with C. nasturtii pupae, the emergence pattern from the soil was very similar regardless whether the soil was later planted to host or non‐host plants. As emergence was not affected, we examined whether manipulating host availability for oviposition through crop rotation would be effective. Our results indicated that the simulated cauliflower‐sweet corn and cauliflower‐kidney bean rotation systems provided full control of C. nasturtii. The effectiveness of one cycle of non‐host crop rotation was reduced when cruciferous weeds were present. However, the C. nasturtii population in a one‐cycle non‐host rotation system with cruciferous weeds present was significantly lower than that in a non‐rotation system. Two consecutive cycles (simulating a cropping season) of non‐host plant crop rotations provided full control of C. nasturtii, regardless of the presence of the cruciferous weeds. The importance of cruciferous weed management and how to implement a successful crop rotation in fields to control C. nasturtii are discussed.
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".