Variation in response to insecticides in two species of univoltine leafrollers (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Populations of fruittree leafroller, Archips argyrospila (Walker), and European leafroller, Archips rosana L., were obtained from eight sites in the Okanagan Valley, British Columbia, and assayed for their responses to five insecticides using a leaf-disk bioassay and neonate larvae. Lethal concentration ratios (LCR values) were calculated for all populations compared with the most susceptible strain, and significant variation was detected in both species. LCR values ranged from 1.04 to 9.06 for azinphosmethyl, from 1.29 to 53.15 for tebufenozide (Confirm®), from 1.85 to 24.69 for methoxyfenozide (Intrepid®), from 1.59 to 2291.4 for indoxacarb (Avaunt®), and from 1.92 to 1.98 for spinosad (Success®). Methoxy fenozide was approximately 100-fold more toxic to neonate leafrollers than was tebufenozide, and spinosad was the most toxic of all materials tested. Correlation analysis indicated that there was cross-resistance between azinphosmethyl and tebufenozide. At the LC50 level, the responses of the two species were not significantly different for each insecticide. Analysis of equivalency and parallelism of dose-response lines revealed that A. argyrospila and A. rosana had equivalent responses to azinphosmethyl. LC50 values for the response of A. argyrospila to azinphosmethyl were not different from values obtained almost 20 years earlier. Cross-resistance between azinphosmethyl and tebufenozide suggests that resistance management for these two species of univoltine leafrollers should not include rotation of azinphosmethyl and benzoylhydrazine insect-growth regulators. The high level of resistance to indoxacarb found in one population indicates that baseline tolerance screening is desirable before indoxacarb is introduced for use in Canadian orchards.
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 | 0.001 | 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".