Sprayable Microencapsulated Sex Pheromone Formulations for Mating Disruption of Four Tortricid Species: Effects of Application Height, Rate, Frequency, and Sticker Adjuvant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several application parameters of microencapsulated (MEC) sex pheromone formulations were manipulated to determine their impact on efficacy of disruption for codling moth, Cydia pomonella (L.); oriental fruit moth, Grapholita molesta (Busck); obliquebanded leafroller, Choristoneura rosaceana (Harris); and redbanded leafroller, Argyrotaenia velutinana (Walker). Depending on the experiment, the formulations evaluated were those formerly manufactured by 3M Canada (London, ON, Canada) or those that are currently available from Suterra LLC (Bend, OR). The efficacy of MEC formulations applied by air-blast sprayer evenly throughout the entire canopy of 2-3-m-tall apple (Malus spp.) trees was equivalent to treatments in which targeted applications of MECs were made to the lower or upper 1.5 m of the canopy (at equivalent overall rates) for oriental fruit moth and both leafroller species. The realized distribution of deposited microcapsules within the tree canopy corresponded well with the intended heights of application within the canopy. The additional coapplication of the pine resin sticker Nu-Film 17 increased efficacy but not longevity of MEC formulations for oriental fruit moth; this adjuvant had no added effects for codling moth or leafroller formulations. Increasing the rate of active ingredient (AI) per hectare by 20-30-fold (range 2.5-75.0 g/ha) did not improve the disruption efficacy of MECs for codling moth or either leafroller species when both low and high rates were applied at equivalent frequencies per season. A low-rate, high-frequency (nine applications per season) application protocol was compared with a standard protocol in which two to three applications were made per season, once before each moth generation for each species. The low-rate, high-frequency protocol resulted in equivalent or better disruption efficacy for each moth species, despite using two-fold less total AI per hectare per season with the former treatment. The low-rate, frequent-application protocol should make the use of MEC formulations of synthetic pheromone more economical and perhaps more effective.
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".