Importance of Collection Overhangs on the Efficacy of Exclusion Fences for Managing Cabbage Flies (Diptera: Anthomyiidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fine nylon mesh fences (135 cm high) with varying lengths of downward-sloping collection overhangs were evaluated for efficacy in excluding the female cabbage flies Delia radicum (L.) from plots of radish, Raphanus sativus (L.). During three trials conducted in 1994 and 1995, fences without overhangs, fences with 12.5-cm overhangs, or fences with 50-cm overhangs were tested against fences with standard 25-cm overhangs and unfenced control plots. In fenced plots with standard 25-cm overhangs, the mean number of D. radicum females caught on yellow sticky traps placed within plots was 85% less than those caught in corresponding control plots. The mean numbers of D. radicum females caught in fenced enclosures with no overhangs, 12.5-cm overhangs, or 50-cm overhangs, were 61, 67, and 94% less than those caught in corresponding control plots, respectively. The mean proportion of radishes damaged by D. radicum larvae inside enclosures with 25-cm overhangs was 62% less than in corresponding control plots. The mean proportions of radishes damaged inside fences with no overhangs, 12.5-cm overhangs, or 50-cm overhangs were 33, 59, and 81% less than those caught in corresponding control plots, respectively. Results are discussed in terms of defining an appropriate fence design for commercial use.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".