Comparison of a Sprayable Pheromone Formulation and Two Hand-Applied Pheromone Dispensers forUse in the Integrated Control of Oriental Fruit Moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficacy of integrated programs using a sprayable pheromone formulation or one of two hand-applied pheromone dispensers, and a conventional oriental fruit moth, Grapholita molesta (Busck) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) control program, was compared using 4-5-ha blocks of peach orchard at three Niagara Peninsula farms during 2000-2002. In the integrated programs, chlorpyrifos and mating disruption with 3M Sprayable Pheromone, Isomate OFM Rosso, or Rak 5 hand-applied dispensers were used to control first-generation larvae, and mating disruption alone was used to control second- and third-generation larvae. In the conventional program, chlorpyrifos was used to control first-generation larvae, and pyrethroid insecticides were used to control larvae of the later generations. All programs were effective at maintaining fruit infestation by G. molesta below the industry tolerance level of 1%. An integrated program using sprayable pheromone required the use of more supplementary insecticide applications to control second- and third-generation larvae than a program using hand-applied dispensers. The elimination of insecticide sprays from integrated program blocks did not result in an increase in damage by plant bugs, Lygus spp. (Hemiptera: Miridae) or by the plum curculio, Conotrachelus nenuphar (Herbst) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae).
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 | 0.001 | 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".