MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005351836 · doi:10.5424/sjar/2013112-3556

Side effects of different pesticides used in citrus on the adult stage of the parasitoid Aphytis melinus DeBach (Hymenoptera Aphelinidae) and its progeny

2013· article· en· W2005351836 on OpenAlexfundno aff
José E. González-Zamora, María Luz Castillo, C. Avilla

Bibliographic record

VenueSpanish Journal of Agricultural Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJunta de AndalucíaRio TintoInstitut National de la Recherche AgronomiqueGeneralitat Valenciana
KeywordsAphelinidaeToxicologyBiologySpinosadParasitoidPesticideEmamectinHorticultureHymenopteraBotanyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Twelve pesticides commonly used in citrus in Spain were tested on adults of Aphytis melinus DeBach to determine their effects on parasitoid survival and fecundity, and the duration of the residue of each pesticide. Six of these pesticides were found to be harmless to moderately harmful to this parasitoid in a laboratory assay in closed Petri dishes: spinosad (bait formulation), azadirachtin, fenbutatin, fosetyl-Al, copper oxichloride, and mancozeb, with their scores on the reduction of beneficial capacity (RBC) index being between 21.4 and 94.6% after one week. The other six pesticides classified as harmful were tested on citrus plants to study their persistence over time under greenhouse conditions: Pirimicarb, pyriproxifen, paraffinic oil, abamectin, chlorpyrifos, and lambda-cyhalothrin. Most of these products reduced their negative effect on adults of A. melinus between one and six weeks after treatment, although lambda-cyhalothrin was still harmful to parasitoids 11 weeks after application. This information can help growers and consultants to make decisions about pesticide selection and application timing in citrus in order to support IPM implementation when A. melinus is present.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpanish Journal of Agricultural ResearchSame topicInsect-Plant Interactions and ControlFrench-language works237,207