MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2399391339 · doi:10.1093/amt/tsv182

Control of<i>Frankliniella occidentalis</i>with Foliar Insecticides, 2014

2015· article· en· W2399391339 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vivek Kumar, Cindy L. McKenzie, Lance S. Osborne

Bibliographic record

VenueArthropod management tests · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect-Plant Interactions and Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPepperGreenhouseWestern flower thripsOrnamental plantSeedlingHorticultureThripsCultivarCropPEST analysisAgronomyThripidae

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of several insecticides against western flower thrips, a serious pest in greenhouse and nursery crop production in the United States. The trial was conducted on an ornamental pepper cultivar ‘Masquerade’ under greenhouse condition at the U.S. Horticultural Research Laboratory. Pepper plants were grown from seed in Fafard Pro-Mix (Canadian Formula; Conrad Fafard, Inc., Agawam, MA 01001-2907) medium in seedling trays and transplanted in 10.1 cm-diam plastic pots when seedlings were approximately 5 wk old. The greenhouse was maintained at 26 ± 3°C and 75–80% RH. Plants were spaced at 1.5 × 1.5 ft, watered as needed (∼2 times a wk), and fertilized weekly with 50 ml/pot of Peters Professional® 20-10-20 (325 ppm) (Scotts Co., Marysville, OH). The trial was setup in a RCB design with five replicates (single plants). Treatment applications were made to established pest populations as a curative measure, using a small hand-held sprayer delivering 65.5 ml/ m 2 at 211 kPa (30.6 psi); treated. Treatment effects were assessed by comparing number of thrips infesting flowers. Thrips density was measured from samples of 1 flower per pepper plant. Flower samples were collected in 50 ml Falcon® tubes, washed with 75% ethanol to dislodge insects at various life stages; the alcohol plus thrips specimens was then sieved using a 25 µm, testing sieve (USA Standard, W. S. Tyler, Inc.). The remaining insects on the sieve were washed off with 75% alcohol into a Petri dish and counted under a dissecting microscope at 12×. Count data were subjected to square root transformation prior to conducting ANOVA and mean separation procedures. The data presented are the untransformed means. When appropriate, treatment mean separation was performed using the least significant difference (LSD) test at the P < 0.05 level. Although numbers varied greatly, there was a significant reduction in the number of thrips in all insecticide treatments relative to the control. Overture was the most effective product in reducing the number of WFT larvae and adults, leading to 100% decrease towards the end of the study. Overture showed consistent results against WFT larvae; no thrips larvae were observed after treatment with Overture on any of the sampling dates ( Table 1 ). Epimek (97-100%) and Spintor (85-100%) also provided significant reduction in the number of thrips larvae on all post- application sampling dates. Spintor (75-100% reduction) and Overture (33-100% reduction) provided significant suppression in the number of WFT adults relative to the untreated control on all the sampling dates, except DAT 5 for Overture ( Table 2 ). Movento was found to be least effective against WFT larvae (27–71% reduction) and adults (61–92% reduction) among all insecticide treatments. No phytotoxicity symptoms were observed following any of the insecticide treatments. Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different ( P > 0.05, LSD test). Henderson–Tilton’s corrected percent mortality is presented in parentheses after each mean. Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different ( P > 0.05, LSD test). Henderson–Tilton’s corrected percent mortality is presented in parentheses after each mean. Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different ( P > 0.05, LSD test). Henderson–Tilton’s corrected percent mortality is presented in parentheses after each mean. Means in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different ( P > 0.05, LSD test). Henderson–Tilton’s corrected percent mortality is presented in parentheses after each mean.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthropod management testsSame topicInsect-Plant Interactions and ControlFrench-language works237,207