Susceptibility of Leafrollers (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) from Organic and Conventional Orchards to Azinphosmethyl, Spinosad, and Bacillus thuringiensis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Populations of obliquebanded leafroller, Choristoneura rosaceana Harris, and three-lined leafroller, Pandemis limitata Robinson, were obtained from seven sites in the Okanagan and Similkameen Valleys of British Columbia and assayed for their responses to three insecticides using a leaf disk bioassay. Lethal concentration ratios (LCRs) were calculated for all populations compared with a susceptible laboratory colony of C. rosaceana; significant variation was detected in response to all three insecticides. LCRs were 0.86-15.52 for azinphosmethyl, 0.38-2.37 for spinosad (Success), and 0.58-4.89 for Bacillus thuringiensis (Foray). Correlation analysis indicated no cross-resistance among the three insecticides. Leafroller populations obtained from apple orchards managed with organic production practices were more susceptible to azinphosmethyl than leafrollers obtained from conventionally managed sites. Conversely, the highest levels of tolerance to B. thuringiensis were observed in the populations from organic sites, possibly reflecting usage patterns; B. thuringiensis is one of the few insecticides allowed under organic production guidelines. All populations were highly susceptible to spinosad, which may be a useful tool for resistance management programs if used judiciously.
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 | 0.001 | 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".