Impact of Decreasing Ratios of Insecticide-Treated Seed on Flea Beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae, <I>Phyllotreta</I> spp.) Feeding Levels and Canola Seed Yields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Field studies were conducted at two locations on the Canadian prairies to investigate use of reduced ratios of insecticide-treated seed in controlling flea beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae, Phyllotreta spp.) damage to canola (Brassica napus L. and Brassica rapa L.). Five treatments were evaluated: bare seed control, fungicide-only (0X), and three ratios of insecticide plus fungicide in proportions of all (1X), two thirds (0.67X), or one third (0.33X) of the seeds coated with insecticide. Decreasing treated seed ratios by one third had no consistent deleterious effects on flea beetle damage, seedling growth, plant density, seed yield, or net cash return. Flea beetle injury to seedlings in the 1X treatment was similar to that of seedlings in the 0.67X treatment, with only two exceptions, and it was almost always lower than that of seedlings without insecticide. The 0.33X treatment generally had flea beetle feeding levels between those of the two high and the two noninsecticide treatments. Plant stand and seedling growth rates with 1X and 0.67X treatments were similar and higher than with bare seed or fungicide-alone treatments. Seed yields were inversely proportional to flea beetle feeding levels. Under very heavy flea beetle feeding, seed yields and net cash returns were highest in 1X plots, but when flea beetle feeding pressure was less extreme and canola growing conditions were favorable, 0.67X seed yields and profits from them were comparable to those in 1X treatments. On an economic basis, currently there is no advantage to decreasing the level of insecticide treated canola seed, but other considerations may affect this assessment.
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".