<I>Bacillus thuringiensis</I> subsp. <I>kurstaki</I> Aerial Spray Prescriptions for Balsam Fir Stand Protection Against Spruce Budworm (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although commercial formulations of Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki (Btk) are being widely used in forest protection against lepidopteran defoliators, optimal application prescriptions have often yet to be worked out in detail. We conducted field experiments over a 6-yr period (1996-2001) in southwestern Québec to determine application prescriptions for optimal protection of balsam fir, Abies balsamea (L.), healthy stands against the spruce budworm, Choristoneura fumiferana (Clemens) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). At moderate larval densities (<30 larvae per 45-cm branch tip), similar foliage protection was achieved with one or two Btk applications of 30 billion international units per hectare (BIU/ha). When larval densities exceeded 30 larvae per branch tip, two successive applications of 30 BIU/ha significantly increased foliage protection. Whether the second application took place 5 or 10 d after the first spray did not affect treatment efficacy. Increasing the application dosage from 30 to 50 BIU/ha did not lead to better foliage protection against high larval densities, but the current standard dosage of 30 BIU/ha saved more foliage than 15 BIU/ha against moderate populations. The recommended dosage of 30 BIU can be applied in lower application volumes (1.5 liters/ha) by using a high-potency product (20 BIU/liter), because we did not observe a reduction in efficacy compared with the application of a lower potency product (12.7 BIU/liter) in 2.37 liters/ha. We also demonstrated that Btk can be applied much earlier in the season without compromising spray efficacy: there was no difference in treatment efficacy of double applications at 30 BIU/ha when the first spray was timed for early third, peak third, or early fourth instars.
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) | 0.002 | 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".