Toxicity Effect of Three Insecticides on Important Pests and Predators in Tomato Plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate insecticide toxicity on Bemisia tabaci, Tetranychus evansi, Orius insidiosus, Cycloneda sanguinea and Chauliognathus flavipes in tomato plants. The following toxicity treatments were applied: T1: control, T2: chlorpyrifos (Pitcher) 450 EC (1.25 L.ha-1), T3: chlorpyrifos 450 EC (Pitcher) (0.62 L.ha-1), T4: thiamethoxam 100 WG (1.00 L.ha-1), T5: thiamethoxam 250 WG (0.50 L.ha-1), T6: teflubenzuron 150 CS (0.025 L.ha-1) and T7: teflubenzuron 150 CS (0.0125 L.ha-1). For the sub-lethal effect, a tenth of the recommended concentration was used. The insecticide teflubenzuron was effective against whitefly nymphs, while chlorpyrifos and thiamethoxam were efficient against adult whiteflies. Insecticides at the dose and lower dose were not efficient to control the adults and nymphs of mite T. evansi. Teflubenzuron was selective at the two doses tested against C. sanguinea and C. flavipes, while thiamethoxam was selective (lower dose) against these two predators. Chlorpyrifos was selective against C. flavipes (lower dose). All insecticides were selective or moderately selective at 21 days after application. Insecticides were not efficient to control the adults and nymphs of T. evansi. The growth regulating insecticide teflubenzuron was effective against whitefly nymphs. Chlorpyrifos and thiamethoxam were efficient against adult whiteflies. In general, the insecticides neonicotinoid and pyrethroid were selective to three predatory species and had lower sublethal impact compared with the organophosphate.
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".