Resistance and Cross-Resistance to Four Insecticides in Populations of Obliquebanded Leafroller (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Populations of obliquebanded leafroller, Choristoneura rosaceana (Harris), were collected from organic and conventionally managed orchards located in the Okanagan and Similkameen Valleys of British Columbia Neonate F1 progeny were assayed for resistance to azinphosmethyl, tebufenozide, methoxyfenozide, and indoxacarb using a leaf disk bioassay. Significant differences in resistance levels among populations were observed for all four insecticides. Insects collected from organic sites were more susceptible to all insecticides than were insects collected from conventional sites. Resistance to the benzoylhydrazine insect growth regulators tebufenozide and methoxyfenozide was highly correlated with resistance to azinphosmethyl across populations, indicating cross-resistance between these compounds. The highest levels of resistance were observed with indoxacarb, but resistance levels to indoxacarb did not correlate with those for azinphosmethyl. Dose-response regression lines for tebufenozide were parallel across populations, suggesting that the resistance mechanism(s) were quantitatively, but not qualitatively, different. Cross-resistance between azinphosmethyl and benzoylhydrazine insecticides indicates that a resistance management strategy for obliquebanded leafroller involving the rotation of these materials is not likely to be successful.
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".