Responses of the cabbage seedpod weevil, <i>Ceutorhynchus obstrictus</i> (Marsham) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), to seed treatments of canola ( <i>Brassica napus</i> L.) with the neonicotinoid compounds clothianidin and imidacloprid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The cabbage seedpod weevil, Ceutorhynchus obstrictus (Marsham), is a major pest in the production of canola (Brassica napus L.) in North America and Europe, and effective population control is often essential for economical crop production. In North America, neonicotinoid insecticides have been used for several years in canola as seed treatments for reducing herbivory by flea beetles. The neonicotinoids clothianidin and imidacloprid were investigated to determine their effects on preimaginal development and on emergence of new-generation adults of C. obstrictus in comparison with effects of lindane, a chlorinated hydrocarbon seed treatment. RESULTS: Mean numbers of second- and third-instar larvae were significantly higher in plants seed-treated with lindane than in plants treated with the neonicotinoid compounds, even though weevil oviposition was similar for all treatments. Emergence of new-generation adults was reduced by 52 and 39% for plants seed-treated with clothianidin and imidacloprid, respectively, compared with emergence from plants treated with lindane. CONCLUSION: Seed treatment with both clothianidin and imidacloprid produced systemic insecticidal effects on larvae of C. obstrictus, with clothianidin slightly more effective than imidacloprid. Use of clothianidin or imidacloprid as seed treatments can comprise an important component in the integrated management of cabbage seedpod weevil in canola.
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".