Spinosad Interacts Synergistically with the Insect Pathogen <I>Metarhizium anisopliae</I> Against the Exotic Wireworms <I>Agriotes lineatus</I> and <I>Agriotes obscurus</I> (Coleoptera: Elateridae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We determined that spinosad interacts synergistically with the biocontrol agent Metarhizium anisopliae (Metch) Sorokin to increase the mortality of two wild-collected wireworm species, Agriotes lineatus (L.), and Agriotes obscurus (L.). Bioassays were performed using a M. anisopliae isolate originally acquired from a local wireworm cadaver. M. anisopliae was applied as a soil drench at 3.3 x 10(2) and 10(4) conidia per gram sand, respectively. Soil drenches also were prepared using a commercial formulation of the actinomycete toxins spinosyn-A and spinosyn-D (common name spinosad) at sublethal doses of 1.5, 3, and 6 ppm active ingredient per gram sand. Combined treatments of spinosad and M. anisopliae were synergistic in causing mortality for all spinosad concentrations. Wireworm feeding activity was reduced after exposure to both spinosad and M. anisopliae and was found to be concentration dependent. The high mortality and reduced rate of wireworm feeding suggest that spinosad and M. anisopliae treatment combinations should be tested in the field.
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) | 0.001 | 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".