Flight take-off and walking behavior of insecticide-susceptible and – resistant strains of <i>Sitophilus zeamais</i> exposed to deltamethrin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Insects have evolved a variety of physiological and behavioral responses to various toxins in natural and managed ecosystems. However, insect behavior is seldom considered in insecticide studies although insects are capable of changing their behavior in response to their sensory perception of insecticides, which may compromise insecticide efficacy. This is particularly serious for insect pests that are physiologically resistant to insecticides since insecticide avoidance may further compromise their management. Locomotion plays a major role determining insecticide exposure and was, therefore, considered in investigating the behavioral responses of male and female adult insects from an insecticide-susceptible and two insecticide-resistant strains of the maize weevil Sitophilus zeamais Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), a major pest of stored cereals. Different dose-dependent behavioral responses were expected among strains with behavioral resistance less likely to occur in physiologically resistant insects since they are able to withstand higher doses of insecticide. The behavioral responses to deltamethrin-sprayed surfaces differed among the maize weevil strains. Such responses were concentration-independent for all of the strains. Stimulus-independent behavioral resistance was unrelated to physiological resistance with one resistant strain exhibiting higher rates of flight take-off and the other resistant strain exhibiting lower flight take-off. Female mobility was similar for all strains, unlike male mobility. Males of each strain exhibited a pattern of mobility following the same trend of flight take-off. Behavioral patterns of response to insecticide are, therefore, variable among strains, particularly among insecticide-resistant strains, and worth considering in resistance surveys and management programs.
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) | 0.001 | 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".