Comparison of Efficacy of Programs Using Insecticide and Insecticide Plus Mating Disruption for Controlling the Obliquebanded Leafroller in Apple (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relative efficacy of an insecticide program and an insecticide plus mating disruption program using a sprayable pheromone formulation or a hand-applied pheromone dispenser was compared for control of the obliquebanded leafroller, Choristoneura rosaceana (Harris) at three commercial apple farms in a production area along the north shore of Lake Ontario, Canada, during 2000, 2001, and 2002. The average rate of disruption ranged from 50 to 80% in blocks of orchard treated with sprayable pheromone and from 84 to 98% in blocks treated with the hand-applied dispenser. The average proportion of shoots with larval feeding injury ranged from 0.002 to 0.09, 0.001 to 0.09, and 0.005 to 0.13 in the insecticide, insecticide plus sprayable pheromone, and insecticide plus hand-applied dispenser treatments, respectively, during the 3-yr study. The percentage of fruit with damage caused by spring, summer and overwintering larvae ranged from 0.03 to 0.06, 0.01 to 0.02, and 0.01 to 0.03 in the insecticide, insecticide plus sprayable pheromone, and insecticide plus hand-applied dispenser treatments, respectively. The addition of sex pheromone-mediated mating disruption to a conventional, insecticide-based program did not provide additional control of C. rosaceana feeding injury to shoots or fruit. The possible reasons for the failure of mating disruption to provide additional control are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 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".