Evaluation of Border Sprays for Managing the Codling Moth (Tortricidae: Lepidoptera) and the Apple Maggot (Tephritidae: Diptera) in Ontario Apple Orchards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficacy of two insecticide control programs for managing the codling moth, Cydia pomonella (L.), and the apple maggot, Rhagoletis pomonella (Walsh), were compared in the Georgian Bay, London, Niagara, and Quinte apple production areas of Ontario during 1995, 1996, and 1997. In the border spray program, an initial cover spray of organophosphorus insecticide was applied to eradicate codling moths that may have colonized a test plot during the previous growing season. Subsequent sprays were applied only to a four-tree-wide zone (approximately 20 wide) around the perimeter of the plot to control immigrating codling moths or apple maggots. In the cover spray program, all sprays of organophosphorus insecticide were applied to the entire plot. Apple maggot injury was significantly greater in border spray program plots than in cover spray program plots only during 1995 in the London production area. There was no significant difference in codling moth injury between border spray and cover spray plots in the four production areas during the three-year study. The elimination of cover sprays from border spray plots during July and August may have left the apple crop more susceptible to damage by second generation larvae of the obliquebanded leafroller, Choristoneura rosaceana (Harris), in the London production area during 1995. There was a trend of increasing codling moth injury from 1995 to 1997 in two border spray plots, and apple maggot injury was detected in these plots during the third year of the study.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".