Susceptibilities of Apple Aphid and Spirea Aphid Collected from Apple in the Pacific Northwest to Selected Insecticides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laboratory bioassays using leaf disks of apple dipped in test solutions of insecticides demonstrated that the apple aphid, Aphis pomi De Geer, and the spirea aphid, Aphis spiraecola Patch, differed significantly in susceptibility to a number of insecticides registered for control of aphids on apple (Malus spp.). Compared with A. pomi, A. spiraecola was approximately four- and three-fold less susceptible to pirimicarb and lambda-cyhalothrin, respectively, whereas there was little difference in response to dimethoate. Pymetrozine is thought to act on aphids primarily as a feeding inhibitor. Exposure of aphids to this material generated data that fit the probit model for only half the tested clones. However, the LC50 value for one clone of A. spiraecola was nearly 1,000 times higher than the value for one clone of A. pomi. Although the results from these trials did not indicate that either species had developed significant levels of resistance to the test materials, differences in LC50 levels of > 10-fold suggest insecticide tolerances and the possibility of control failures in the future. The demonstrated differences in susceptibility to insecticides between these two morphologically similar species also should be considered during the evaluation of new products for use on apple.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".