Effectiveness of insecticide‐treated and non‐treated trap plants for the management of <i>Frankliniella occidentalis</i> (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) in greenhouse ornamentals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effectiveness of trap cropping as an integrated control strategy against western flower thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande) (Thysanoptera: Thripidae), was explored in potted chrysanthemum, Dendranthema grandiflora (Tzvelev), greenhouse crops. The efficacy of flowering chrysanthemum trap plants, either treated with the insecticide spinosad or untreated, to regulate F. occidentalis populations was tested at different spatial scales (small cage, large cage and commercial greenhouse) and for different time periods (1 or 4 weeks). It was demonstrated that flowering chrysanthemums as trap plants lower the number of adult F. occidentalis in a vegetative chrysanthemum crop and, as a result, reduce crop damage. In the 4 week large-cage trial and the commercial trial, significant differences between the control and the trap plant treatments started to appear in the third week of the experiment. Larvae were only significantly reduced by the presence of trap plants in the 1 week small-cage trials. There were no significant differences between treatments with spinosad-treated and untreated trap plants in the number of F. occidentalis on the crop. This suggests that there was minimal movement of adult F. occidentalis back and forth between the trap plants and the crop to feed and oviposit. It is concluded that the trap plant strategy is a useful tool for integrated pest management against F. occidentalis in greenhouses.
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".