Effect of insecticide‐treated potato plants on aphid behavior and <i>potato virus Y</i> acquisition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective was to assess the effect of two contact insecticides, lambda-cyhalothrin and flonicamid, and three systemic insecticides, pymetrozine, dimethoate and imidacloprid, on the behavior and potato virus Y (PVY) acquisition of three aphid species, Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Thomas), Rhopalosiphum padi L. and Aphis fabae (Scopoli). RESULTS: At 1-4 days after application, contact insecticides strongly modified aphid behavior and intoxicated them. Dimethoate sprayed on potato plants did not change the behavior of the three tested aphid species, while imidacloprid slightly reduced the probing behavior of M. euphorbiae and intoxicated several R. padi. The residual effect of the insecticides (10-21 days after application) was almost non-existent. No intoxication was found, and only slight changes in the behavior of R. padi and A. fabae were observed. The acquisition of PVY by R. padi was reduced on lambda-cyhalothrin- and dimethoate-treated plants that were sprayed a few days before the test. CONCLUSION: One systemic and two contact insecticides were effective at intoxicating aphids and reducing probing behavior soon after application. Some insecticides might sporadically reduce the spread of PVY either by modifying the behavior or reducing PVY acquisition, but their action is likely limited to a short period of time after application.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".