Comparison of standard and organic pesticides as well as herbal products for control of insect pests of cabbage (Brassica oleracea) in Saskatchewan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many insect pests can potentially damage cabbage (Brassica oleracea) grown in Saskatchewan. Root maggots (Delia spp), flea beetles (Phyllotreta spp) and cabbage worms (Order: Lepidoptera) are the main concerns. The objective of this project was to assess the potential to use of companion planted herbs or herbal essential oils as control methods for these pests. Standard synthetic pesticides were used as a check treatment. Organic pesticides and a row cover were also tested and compared to an untreated control. The herbal treatments were garlic or thyme plants interplanted with the cabbage crop along with foliar sprays of garlic or thyme oil. The pest control treatments were compared in trials using both transplanted and direct seeded cabbage. The standard and organic pesticide regimes both effectively controlled all three of the insect pests, and resulted in similar head yields in both the transplanted and direct seeded cabbage crops. The row cover successfully prevented insect damage but created problems with weed control and required extra materials and labour to construct. The microclimate created by the row cover decreased growth of the direct seeded crop. None of the herbal products provided effective control of any of the insect pests of cabbage. In conclusion, cabbage can be successfully grown in Saskatchewan with minimal losses to insects using either standard synthetic or organic pesticides, but the herbal were not effective in the form and rates tested in this project.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".