Evaluation of Reduced-Risk Alternative Control Programs for Insect Pests of Apple and Their Potential Impact on Beneficial Insects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2003, there were 18,000 acres of apples grown in Ontario with a farm gate value of $65 million, making it one of the most important fruit crops in the province. Currently, the Ontario apple integrated pest management (IPM) program relies heavily on the use of organophosphate (OP) insecticides to manage several key economic insect pests of apple. In general, OP insecticides are considered to be highly toxic to beneficial insects that play an important role in suppressing insect pests in apple orchards. Reduced-risk alternative insecticides are registered in the US, however these products are not currently registered for use in Canada. The objectives of this project are to 1) assess the efficacy of reduced-risk alternative control products in various pest management programs for insect pests of apples in Ontario and 2) evaluate the impact of these reduced-risk programs on beneficial insects and mites found in apple orchard ecosystems. In 2004, field trials were conducted in five commercial orchards in Ontario where 4 insecticide programs (3 reduced-risk programs and 1 conventional program) were compared using a randomized complete block design, with each orchard representing a replicate. Growers applied the treatments with airblast sprayers based on the results of crop monitoring. Preliminary results suggest that reduced-risk pesticide programs provided effective control of plum curculio, codling moth and apple maggot. The pesticide treatments tested did not appear to have an effect on beneficial insects.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".