Integrated Control of Oriental Fruit Moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in Peach Orchards Using Insecticide and Mating Disruption
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficacy of an integrated and a conventional oriental fruit moth, Grapholita molesta (Busck), control program was compared using 4-ha blocks of peach at three Niagara Peninsula farms during 1997-1999. In the integrated program, chlorpyrifos was used to control first-generation larvae and mating disruption using Isomate M100 pheromone dispensers was used to control the second and third generations. In the conventional program, chlorpyrifos was used to control first-generation larvae and pyrethroids were used to control larvae of the later generations. The average release rate of pheromone was 23.7-26.4 mg/ha/h over a period of 86-91 d. The pheromone treatment reduced the capture of moths in pheromone-baited traps on average by 98%, suggesting a high level of disruption. The integrated program provided control of oriental fruit moth similar to the control provided by a conventional program. The mean percentage of peach shoots infested with first- and second-generation larvae, and fruit infested with third-generation larvae was not significantly greater in the integrated-program blocks during the 3-yr study. The elimination of insecticide sprays from the integrated-program blocks did not result in an increase in damage caused by plant bugs. The incidence of damage caused by other pests was negligible in both the integrated and conventional blocks.
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) | 0.000 | 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".