Adaptation of the Use of Pyroligneous Acid in Control of Caterpillars and Agronomic Performance of the Soybean Crop
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of pyroligneous acid alone and in combination with insecticides in control of caterpillars and on the agronomic performance of soybean. The experiment was conducted under field and laboratory conditions in Bom Jesus - PI, in the 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 crop seasons. The field experiment used in a randomized block, 4 x 4 factorial design with four replications, the factors consisting of four pyroligneous acid concentrations (zero, 1.5, 3.0, and 6.0%) and five insecticide treatments: lambdacyhalothrin + thiamethoxam (15.9 g ha-1 + 21.15 g ha-1), cypermethrin (300 g ha-1), chlorpyriphos (240 g ha-1), teflubenzuron (7.5 g ha-1). In the laboratory a completely randomized design was used with 12 treatments and five replications. We evaluated the control of A. gemmatalis and P. includens (in field and laboratory), agronomic characteristics and yield. The application of pyroligneous acid alone or in combination with insecticides provided levels of control of A. gemmatalis and P. includens similar to the insecticides tested. There was no effect of pyroligneous acid on the number of pods plant-1 or grains pod-1. The yield was higher than the control, but did not differ from the other treatments containing pyroligneous acid alone or in combination. According to laboratory and field tests, it appears that the pyroligneous extract affected the number of larvae plant-1 and reduced leaf consumption, an important result for management programs of A. gemmatalis and P. includens.
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".