Control of Stored-Product Beetles with Combinations of Protein-Rich Pea Flour and Parasitoids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protein-rich pea flour is toxic and repellent to three major storedgrain pests: the rice weevil, Sitophilus oryzae L.; the red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum (Herbst); and the rusty grain beetle, Cryptolestes ferrugineus (Stephens). This study found that protein-rich pea flour was not toxic to, and did not reduce the offspring of, Anisopteromalus calandrae (Howard), a parasitoid of S. oryzae, nor did it reduce offspring of Cephalonomia waterstoni (Gahan), a parasitoid of C. ferrugineus. Protein-rich pea flour was also not repellent to A. calandrae. Small-scale and large-scale tests of a combination of protein-rich pea flour and parasitoids were conducted in 2-liter jars and in barrels containing 330 kg wheat. A larger population of A. calandrae was found at a high host infestation rate (24 adults/kg for 25 d), but the parasitoid did not become established at middle and low host infestation rates (2.4; 0.24 adults/kg for 25 d). The combinations of protein-rich pea flour and parasitoids reduced populations of S. oryzae in both tests. Additional effects of protein-rich pea flour and parasitoids were found in the large-scale test. Releasing parasitoids alone reduced the populations of S. oryzae by 46% and C. ferrugineus by 49%. Treating wheat with 0.04 or 0.1% protein-rich pea flour reduced the population of S. oryzae by 26 and 79% and C. ferrugineus by 27 and 43%, respectively. Combining parasitoids with 0.04 or 0.1% protein-rich pea flour reduced S. oryzae populations by 76 and 98% and C. ferrugineus populations by 42 and 75%, respectively. At the end of the large-scale experiment, grain treated with protein-rich pea flour alone or in combination with parasitoids had better grain quality than the untreated controls.
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".