Practical Application of an Electric Field Screen to an Exclusion of Flying Insect Pests and Airborne Fungal Conidia from Greenhouses with a Good Air Penetration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an attempt to control pathogens and insect pests affecting greenhouse tomatoes, we evaluated an electric field screen to create an airy greenhouse condition that successfully excluded insect vectors (whiteflies, green peach aphids, western flower thrips and shore flies) of pathogens and airborne conidia of tomato powdery mildew. The screen consisted of three parts: 1) insulated conductor wires (ICWs) arrayed in parallel at 5-mm intervals, 2) two stainless-steel nets that were grounded and placed on both sides of the ICWs, and 3) a direct current (DC) voltage generator to negatively charge the ICWs. An electric field formed between the negative surface charge of the ICWs and the positive charge on the ICW-side surface of the grounded net. The ICWs captured insects and airborne conidia that entered the field. Insects that contacted the outer surface of the screen net avoided the electric field and flew away from the screen. During continuous 3-month greenhouse operation, the screen was durable and functional in exerting stable pest exclusion and good air penetration for ventilation under changing greenhouse climate conditions. In three experiments examining the occurrence of powdery mildew in hydroponically cultured tomato plants on either side of a greenhouse partition, the screen-guarded plants remained germ free throughout the culture period (1 month), whereas powdery mildew was present on the leaves of almost all unguarded tomato plants. Thus, our electric field screen provided an airy condition for tomatoes in an open-window greenhouse that successfully excluded airborne pathogens and flying insect pests.
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".