Joint Actions of Baculoviruses and Other Control Agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Baculoviruses are arthropod-specific viruses that have been utilized as biological control agents since 1930 (1). Several advantages are associated with the use of baculoviruses for pest control, including the host specificity and environmental compatibility attributes that offer major advantages over classical insecticides (2, 3). Because of these attributes, baculoviruses may be readily integrated mto an IPM program because they do not adversely affect beneficial insects and other nontarget organisms (2, 4, 5). However, the success of baculoviruses as biological control agents of insect pests has been widely variable. Over the past two decades, baculoviruses have been commercialized for the control of codling moth (Cydia pomonella), gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar), corn earworm (Helicoverpa zea), tobacco budworm (Heliothis virescens), beet armyworm (Spodoptera exigua), and the cabbage looper (Trzchoplusia ni) in the United States; the rhinoceros beetle (Oryctes rhinoceras) in the Pacific; the velvetbean caterpillar (Antacarsia gemmatalis) in Brazil (6–8); and Spodoptera exigua and Cydia pomonella in Europe (9, 10). In addition, large scale control programs for periodic forest pests, such as the Douglas-Fir tussock moth (Orgyia pseudotsugata), Eastern Spruce Budworm (Chorzstoneura fumzjkana), and European pine sawfly (Neodiprion sertzfer), have been conducted in countries worldwide, including Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Italy, Poland, and the Soviet Republic (former USSR) (11). Although these materials have been used sporadically in the past, biological control agents currently account for <l% of the total msecticide sales, with Bacillus thurzngzensis making up the bulk of this percentage (12). Baculoviruses have never captured a significant msectlclde market share prlmarlly because of their mstablllty m the field and their relatively slow time to kill (13, 14).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".