Response of the Pacific Coast wireworm, Limonius canus, and the dusky wireworm, Agriotes obscurus (Coleoptera: Elateridae), to insecticide-treated wheat seeds in a soil bioassay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Larvae of the dusky wireworm, Agriotes obscurus, and the Pacific Coast wireworm, Limonius canus, were exposed to germinated, insecticide-treated wheat seeds in a soil-filled bioassay in 2005 and 2006. Position in the bioassay and contact and/or repellence behaviour towards the seeds were recorded every 5 min for 3 or 5 h. Wireworm health was recorded for 70 or 126 d after exposure. Seeds were treated with the fungicides Dividend XLRTA (difenoconazole, mefenoxam) or Raxil MD (tebuconazole, metalaxyl), and/or the insecticides Vitavax Dual (lindane), Poncho 600F (clothianidin), Cruiser 350FS (thiamethoxam), Admire 240FS (imidacloprid), Gaucho 480FL (imidacloprid), Tefluthrin 20CS (tefluthrin), or Tefluthrin-Cruiser combinations. Most wireworms (> 80%) came into contact with the seeds in all treatments. Wireworms generally remained in contact throughout the observation period in the control treatments (Dividend, Raxil, untreated seeds). Unless moribund, wireworms were repelled after brief (< 20 min) contact in all Tefluthrin treatments. Most wireworms recovered from contact-induced morbidity within 21 d and did not relapse, except L. canus exposed to Cruiser and some A. obscurus exposed to Gaucho and Admire. Wireworm mortality was low (< 50%) in all treatments except L. canus exposed to Cruiser at 15 and 30 g a.i. 100 kg-1 seed (60 and 75%, respectively). Mortality was significantly less important when L. canus larvae were exposed to Tefluthrin-Cruiser combinations than when exposed to Cruiser alone. We suggest that efficacy assessments of insecticides for wireworm control require direct observation of their behaviour and long-term post-exposure health assessments, and discuss the impact of repellence and/or morbidity elicited by insecticides on wireworm control in the field.
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".