Toxicity and sublethal effects of an insecticidal soap on <i>Aphidius colemani</i> (Hymenoptera: Braconidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effects of an insecticidal soap on the survival, fitness and behaviour of an aphid parasitoid wasp, Aphidius colemani (Viereck), were studied in the laboratory. The LC(50) (soap concentration causing 50% mortality 24 h after treatment) was determined. The survival of parasitoid larvae (% adult emergence), fitness (tibia length of adults) and number of eggs produced per female parasitoid that survived in third- and fourth-instar aphids treated with insecticidal soap LC(50) were also assessed. The LC(50) for third- and fourth-instar aphids was determined to be 3.25 g L(-1). Acceptance by female parasitoids of aphids that survived their LC(50) was also tested. RESULTS: The soap concentration causing 100% mortality in adult wasps 24 h after treatment was 17.5 g L(-1). The LC(50) was 2.75 g L(-1). Soap did not have any effect on the survival of parasitoid immatures or on the fitness or number of eggs produced per female parasitoid. Wasps that were in contact with treated aphids did not oviposit as much in them as in untreated aphids, indicating that female parasitoids detected aphids treated with insecticidal soap. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that aphid parasitoids released following treatment with insecticidal soap are likely to accept a lower proportion of the surviving aphids. Biological control programmes could be ameliorated by soap applications if the latter were made 1 day before the release of wasps in the greenhouse.
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".