Mortality of <i>Rhagoletis indifferens</i> exposed to hydrolyzed protein baits and spinosad in the absence and presence of yeast extract
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Western cherry fruit fly, Rhagoletis indifferens Curran (Diptera: Tephritidae), is the major quarantine pest of sweet cherry, Prunus avium (L.) L. (Rosaceae), in the Pacific northwest of the USA and in British Columbia in Canada. Although spinosad bait (GF‐120 NF Naturalyte® Fruit Fly Bait) is used for the control of R. indifferens in this region, the effects of alternate food sources on fly responses to this bait have not been studied. In this study, experiments were conducted to determine mortalities of flies exposed to hydrolyzed protein baits in the presence of sugar only and sugar + yeast extract food. All baits contained Entrust® (termed ‘spinosad alone’). When flies were exposed to GF‐120 with or without added ammonia compounds (uric acid, ammonium acetate, and ammonium carbonate) for 48 h, mortalities were higher in the presence of sugar only than in the presence of sugar + yeast extract, but when flies were exposed to spinosad alone, mortalities were similar in presence of either of the two foods. In another experiment comparing GF‐120, Nu‐Lure, Mazoferm, Baker's yeast extract, and spinosad alone, mortalities in the GF‐120, Mazoferm, and Baker's yeast extract treatments were higher in the presence of sugar only than in the presence of sugar + yeast extract, but in the Nu‐Lure and spinosad alone treatments, mortalities were similar in the presence of either of the two foods. Overall results suggest that the indirect effects of yeast extract food on mortality are dependent on bait type and that mortalities caused by spinosad alone and baits are similar. Nu‐Lure and spinosad alone may have an advantage over other treatments for fly control, because their effects do not appear to be affected by the presence of nitrogenous food.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".