Influence of Humidity and Greenhouse Microclimate on the Efficacy of <I>Beauveria bassiana</I> (Balsamo) for Control of Greenhouse Arthropod Pests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the influence of different humidity levels on percentage of infection by Beauveria bassiana (Balsamo) Vuillemin (Hyphomycetes) (Botanigard Emulsifiable Suspension formulation) on greenhouse insect and mite pests, and their commercially available biological control agents. The target insect and mite species were sprayed with B. bassiana and evaluated in petri dish trials under controlled environment conditions, on cucumber leaves under greenhouse crop conditions, and under fully sprayed greenhouse conditions. Results of this study showed that in petri dish trials, a humidity of 97.5% RH resulted in significantly higher percentage of infection (60–88.8%), while at 75 and 80% RH only 15.3–43.9% of the pest insects were infected. On leaf surfaces, the differences in ambient humidity did not cause as great of variations in percentage of infection as in the petri dish trials. Increasing greenhouse humidity by 15% RH caused an increase of 17–25% in percentage of infection. Under high humidity conditions, whole greenhouse sprays with B. bassiana successfully suppressed populations of Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande) and Trialeurodes vaporariorum (Westwood). Tetranychus urticae Koch was not infected by B. bassiana at significant levels in any of the trials. Predatory mites can be used with B. bassiana, while adult Orius insidiosus (Say), Aphidius colemani Viereck, and Dacnusa sibirica Telenga are not recommended to be introduced during the application of B. bassiana. Encarsia formosa Gahan, Eretmocerus eremicus (Rose and Zolnerowich), and Aphidoletes aphidimyza (Rondani) need to be used with caution when B. bassiana is applied.
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".