Susceptibility in field populations of codling moth, <i>Cydia pomonella</i> (L.) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), in Ontario and Quebec apple orchards to a selection of insecticides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Codling moth is a major pest of pome fruit worldwide. Insecticide resistance has become a widespread pest management issue. However, the current status of insecticide resistance in Ontario and Quebec codling moth populations is unknown. RESULTS: Codling moth populations were collected from 27 orchards in Ontario and Quebec from 2008 to 2010. A series of laboratory bioassays were performed to establish baseline susceptibility of adults and larvae to azinphos-methyl, thiacloprid, chlorantraniliprole and methoxyfenozide. Adult codling moth percentage mortality ranged from 22 to 97% and from 21 to 85% when exposed to topical bioassays using azinphos-methyl and thiacloprid respectively. Azinphos-methyl LC50 values from three selected orchards were ca fivefold greater than those from an insecticide-susceptible population. Neonate larva percentage mortality ranged from 5 to 50%, from 15 to 65%, from 90 to 100% and from 10 to 40% when exposed to diet bioassays using azinphos-methyl, thiacloprid, chlorantraniliprole and methoxyfenozide respectively. CONCLUSION: Based on the response of the field-collected populations, resistance development to some registered insecticides was evident in some Ontario and Quebec populations. With the present status of insecticide resistance documented in these regions, modifications to codling moth management strategies should be initiated before changes in field efficacy occur.
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 | 0.001 | 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".