Seeds of Change: Corn Seed Mixtures for Resistance Management and Integrated Pest Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of mixtures of transgenic insecticidal seed and nontransgenic seed to provide an in-field refuge for susceptible insects in insect-resistance-management (IRM) plans has been considered for at least two decades. However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has only recently authorized the practice. This commentary explores issues that regulators, industry, and other stakeholders should consider as the use of biotechnology increases and seed mixtures are implemented as a major tactic for IRM. We discuss how block refuges and seed mixtures in transgenic insecticidal corn, Zea mays L., production will influence integrated pest management (IPM) and the evolution of pest resistance. We conclude that seed mixtures will make pest monitoring more difficult and that seed mixtures may make IRM riskier because of larval behavior and greater adoption of insecticidal corn. Conversely, block refuges present a different suite of risks because of adult pest behavior and the lower compliance with IRM rules expected from farmers. It is likely that secondary pests not targeted by the insecticidal corn as well as natural enemies will respond differently to block refuges and seed mixtures.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".