Sweet Corn, Explored as a Companion Plant, Mitigates Sucking Insects in Industrial Tomato Plants, Pre-flowering Stage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plant diversification mitigates colonization by herbivorous insects in agricultural systems. Tomato and sweet corn generate raw material, for industrial processing, with outstanding production in Goiás state, Brazil. Yet, little is known about the potential of sweet corn as a companion plant for sucking insects, and natural enemies, in tomato plants. We collected pests and natural enemies in tomato (pre-flowering stage) plants under three treatments: isolated tomato plants (T1), tomato plants with sweet corn in the border (T2), and tomato plants with polyculture (garlic, lettuce, and squash) in the border (T3). The insects were collected by yellow sticky traps. Dalbulus maidis (29.52%), Frankliniella schultzei (23.90%), F. occidentalis (18.72%) and Myzus persicae (15.20%) corresponded to 87.34% of the total insects collected. Tomato plants cultivated with sweet corn on the border had lower infestation of the thrips, F. schultzei as well as the aphid M. persicae. The number of D. maidis and F. occidentalis adults did not change according to the treatments. Diabrotica speciosa and Astylus variegatus were more collected in tomato plants with adjacent sweet corn. Predators and parasitoids represented only 6.62% of the total abundance. Cycloneda sanguinea and parasitoids were more collected in tomato plants with polyculture (T3). Tomato with sweet corn or polyculture favored the abundance of the predator Sphaerophoria scripta. Considerations around the control of insect pests and the sustenance of natural enemies in tomato plants, with sweet corn acting as a companion plant, in the pre-flowering stage of that Solanaceae, are demonstrated.
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) | 0.002 | 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".