Design and Evaluation of an Aerial Spray Trial with True Replicates to Test the Efficacy of Bacillus thuringiensis Insecticide in a Boreal Forest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A field trial using true replicates was conducted successfully in a boreal forest in 1996 to evaluate the efficacy of two aerially applied Bacillus thuringiensis formulations, ABG 6429 and ABG 6430. A complete randomized design with four replicates per treatment was chosen. Twelve to 15 balsam fir (Abies balsamea [L.] Mill.) per plot were randomly selected as sample trees. Interplot buffer zones, > or = 200 m wide, adequately prevented cross contamination from sprays that were atomized with four rotary atomizers (volume median diameters ranging from 64.6 to 139.4 microm) and released approximately 30 m above the ground. The B. thuringiensis formulations were not significantly different (P > 0.05) from each other in reducing spruce budworm (Choristoneura fumiferana [Clem.]) populations and protecting balsam trees from defoliation but both formulations were significantly more efficacious than the controls. The results suggest that true replicates are a feasible alternative to pseudoreplication in experimental forest aerial applications.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".