<i>Phyllotreta cruciferae</i> and <i>Phyllotreta striolata</i> responses to insecticidal seed treatments with different modes of action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The strategy used most commonly in western North America to protect seedlings of canola ( Brassica rapa L. and Brassica napus L.) from attack by adults of the flea beetles Phyllotreta cruciferae (Goeze) and Phyllotreta striolata (Fabricius) (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) involves planting seed coated with insecticide for systemic activity. Previous research determined that the two beetle species responded differently to the most commonly used neonicotinoid seed dressings. However, other insecticides that exploit different modes of action have commercial potential for managing infestations of these pests, but no information exists on their efficacies for these flea beetle species. Studies were conducted to compare effects of the neonicotinoid compounds, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid, to spinosyn and fipronil as systemic seed treatments for reducing feeding damage to canola seedlings and increasing mortality of P. cruciferae and P. striolata. Phyllotreta cruciferae experienced greater mortality and caused less feeding damage than P . striolata to seedlings treated with the neonicotinoid compounds. Mortality increased and feeding damage decreased significantly when beetles fed upon seedlings treated with fipronil, indicating its potential usefulness for control of these pests. However, spinosyn seed treatment was relatively ineffective against either beetle species. Higher rates of P. striolata mortality with fipronil than thiamethoxam suggest that fipronil may provide improved flea beetle control over hundreds of thousands of hectares in western North America where flea beetle populations are dominated by P. striolata , and control with thiamethoxam has been suboptimal.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".