Procedure to Enhance the Recovery Rate of Fungus Gnat, Bradysia sp. nr. coprophila Lintner (Diptera: Sciaridae) Adults from Growing Medium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fungus gnats, Bradysia spp., are major insect pests in greenhouses and interiorscapes. Management typically involves the use of either insecticides or biological control agents such as entomopathogenic nematodes. Efficacy trials provide information to greenhouse producers on the effectiveness of these management options. However, a simple procedure that rapidly evaluates the performance of control products against fungus gnat larvae is needed. Because fungus gnat larvae inhabit the growing medium, excess or deficient growing medium moisture may reduce adult fungus gnat emergence, thus confounding effects from efficacy trial treatments. Therefore, it is important to determine the amount of moisture and moisture content that results in the highest recovery of fungus gnat adults. We conducted two replicated experiments in a completely randomized design using a range of initial water volumes (treatments) and two larval stages (second and third) of the fungus gnat, Bradysia sp. nr. coprophila . The success of the procedure was based on the number of fungus gnat adults that emerged per treatment. In the first experiment, initial water volumes of 0, 25, 50, 75, 100, 150, and 200 mL were applied to 300 mL of a soilless growing medium consisting of 50% composted pine bark, 20% Canadian sphagnum peatmoss, 10% perlite, and 20% medium coarse vermiculite (SB300 Universal Mix). In general, the highest mean numbers (range, 11.2 to 14.6) of fungus gnat adults were recovered from growing medium treated with 50, 75, and 100 mL of water. In the second experiment, initial water volumes (treatments) of 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, and 75 mL were applied to 300 mL of the soilless growing medium (SB300 Universal Mix). There were no significant differences in the mean number of fungus gnat adults recovered regardless of the larval instar (second instar: 15.8 to 17.7; third instar: 14.4 to 17.4). The final percent moisture content ranged from 65% to 68% for the second instars and 56% to 66% for third instars. This study demonstrates that the highest number of fungus gnat adults may be recovered from soilless growing medium (SB300 Universal Mix) treated with between 50 and 75 mL of water, thus enhancing the confidence in any data set generated when evaluating insecticides or biological control agents for control of fungus gnats.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".