MORTALITY, FEEDING INHIBITION, AND RECOVERY OF SPRUCE BUDWORM (LEPIDOPTERA: TORTRICIDAE) LARVAE FOLLOWING AERIAL APPLICATION OF A HIGH-POTENCY FORMULATION OF <i>BACILLUS THURINGIENSIS</i> SUBSP. KURSTAKI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A larval population of spruce budworm, Choristoneura fumiferana (Clemens), was monitored for 5 d following aerial application of a commercial formulation of Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner subsp. kurstaki to investigate dose acquisition and expression (larval mortality, recovery, feeding, and growth) in relation to spray deposition and persistence of spray deposits. The main objective was to test if previous laboratory observations on how B . thuringiensis affects feeding and dose ingestion by spruce budworm larvae hold true under field conditions. About 40% of the treated population ingested a lethal dose within 1 d after spray application. Lethally dosed larvae died without further feeding upon transfer from treated foliage to (untreated) artificial diet. Resumption of feeding by larvae that survived the treatment was delayed relative to larvae from the control population during 3 d following spray application; during that time, normal feeding activity and larval weight gain were suppressed. Inhibited feeding by survivors appeared to prevent further dose uptake because the proportion of lethally dosed larvae in daily collections did not increase despite significant residual spray deposits in budworm feeding sites. Restoration of "normal" recovery times by the fourth day coincided with a 65–85% reduction in persistence of the pathogen on the foliage and did not result in further lethal dose acquisition, as treatment-induced mortality dropped to about 20% on the 4th and 5th days. The observations are consistent with previous laboratory observations of how B . thuringiensis affects larval feeding and with the hypothesis that feeding inhibition may be a limiting factor in the acquisition of a lethal dose.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".