Acaricidal Properties of a Chenopodium-Based Botanical
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The emulsifiable concentrate UDA-245 [25% EC (vol:vol)], based on an essential oil extract from Chenopodium ambrosioides variety ambrosioides, a North American herbaceous plant, was compared with commercially available pesticides for their effectiveness to control the adult stage and egg hatch of the twospotted spider mite, Tetranychus urticae Koch (Acari: Tetranychidae) and the European red mite, Panonychus ulmi (Koch) (Acari: Tetranychidae). After a laboratory bioassay with adult twospotted spider mites, a 0.5% concentration of UDA-245 was more effective than 0.7% (AI) of neem oil (Neem Rose Defense). After a similar bioassay with the European red mite, a 0.5% concentration UDA-245 was as effective as 0.006% (AI) of abamectin (Avid). UDA-245 at 0.5% significantly reduced egg hatch of the twospotted spider mite, 5 and 9 d after treatment and of the European red mite 6 d after treatment. Egg hatch was significantly lower using 0.006% (AI) of abamectin, 0.7% of neem oil, and 1.0% insecticidal soap than UDA-245. Residual tests indicated that UDA-245 may be persistent in the environment only for a few hours. Only 23% mortality was noted when mites were introduced on bean leaves 1 h after treatment with a 2% concentration of UDA-245. At the recommended dose of 0.5%, UDA-245 was not considered phytotoxic for most plants tested, i.e., lettuce, roses, and tomatoes. Results suggest that a greenhouse integrated pest management program using UDA-245 could effectively and selectively control mite infestations by treating "hot spots" with negligible effect on biological control agents when treating before introduction or when natural enemies are absent.
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".