Evaluation of Tebufenozide Carry-Over and Residual Effects on Spruce Budworm (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laboratory and field studies investigated carry-over effects of tebufenozide on spruce budworm, Choristoneura fumiferana (Clemens). In the laboratory, third and fourth instars were fed either sublethal doses of tebufenozide (10 ppm) or water onAbies balsamea (L.) Mill. needles, reared to adulthood and allowed to oviposit on laying surfaces 1 or 14 d after being sprayed with water or tebufenozide concentrations of 17.5, 35.0, and 70.0 g/liter. Percentage adult emergence and sex ratio were not affected by larval ingestion of the tebufenozide. Also, the mean number of eggs laid on untreated wax paper by moths reared from tebufenozide-treated larvae was similar to the controls. Hence, tebufenozide did not inhibit carry-over effects on treated larvae. Oviposition on tebufenozide-treated wax paper by moths reared from untreated larvae was affected by both the substrate concentration and the age of the treatment residue. When offered treated and untreated laying surfaces simultaneously, C. fumiferana did not show a preference. However, significantly fewer eggs were laid on both laying surfaces by fewer females than when tebufenozide was absent. Residual tebufenozide on wax paper did not affect egg hatch but topical applications were toxic to eggs. Field studies appear to corroborate laboratory results and suggest that although the ingestion of tebufenozide by larval spruce budworm might not impair adult reproduction, the insecticide's presence in the environment could inhibit oviposition. This inhibition was considered to be a primary factor in tebufenozide's multi-year effects against spruce budworm populations.
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) | 0.001 | 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".