Efficacy of Biopesticides for Management of the Swede Midge (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Management of the swede midge, Contarinia nasturtii Kieffer, in North American crucifer production relies on crop rotation and the timely application of synthetic insecticides, based on pheromone trap monitoring of local adult populations. Organically acceptable formulations of azadirachtin, pyrethrin, and spinosad, and a commercial biopesticide containing the entomopathogenic fungus, Beauveria bassiana, were evaluated for their effects on larval mortality and oviposition deterrence in the greenhouse, and on damage symptoms in the field. In greenhouse trials, pyrethrin and spinosad treatments applied up to 24 h prior to C. nasturtii exposure resulted in significant reductions in oviposition on host plants, whereas azadirachtin and B. bassiana only deterred oviposition when applied 2 h prior to exposure. Spinosad caused the highest larval reduction (∼96%) on cauliflower meristems, while azadirachtin, B. bassiana, and pyrethrin caused significant larval reduction when applied preoviposition and significant mortality when applied postoviposition. Field trials conducted with these insecticides on broccoli in 2011 produced no significant reductions in overall damage levels; however, B. bassiana treatments produced more marketable plants than did the control. In 2013, all treatments significantly reduced overall damage levels and all treatments, except B. bassiana, produced more uninfested and marketable plants than the control. Field applications of these alternative insecticides may be effective in protecting yields of broccoli and cauliflower, when combined with other tactics in an integrated pest management program.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".