Compatibility of Glyphosate with Galerucella calmariensis; a Biological Control Agent for Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By integrating Galerucella calmariensis with glyphosate there is potential to achieve both immediate and sustained control of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). The objective of this study was to determine the compatibility of glyphosate on the oviposition and survival of adult G. Calmariensis and on the ability of G. calmariensis third instar larvae to pupate to teneral adults. Our results revealed glyphosate (formulated as Roundup) at a concentration of 2% (2.43L/acre) and 4% solution (4.86 L/acre) had no impact on the ability of G. calmariensis third instar larvae to pupate to new generation adults. To examine the effect of a 2% solution of glyphosate on adult G. calmariensis oviposition and survival, adults were randomly divided between a direct contact group (adults sprayed directly), an indirect contact group (host plants with adults were sprayed), and a control group. Our results revealed that glyphosate does not impact G. calmariensis oviposition or adult survival. The results of this study indicate that G. calmariensis is compatible with glyphosate indicating that further field studies examining integrated control strategies for purple loosestrife are warranted.
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".