Assessment of Granulovirus, Spinosad, and Mating Disruption for Controlling Cydia pomonella L. [Lepidoptera: Tortricidae] in Organic Coastal California Apple Orchards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Codling moth, Cydia pomonella[Lepidoptera: Tortricidae], is a major entomological pest of apples, pears, and walnuts cross the world (Pajac et al. 2016). Female codling moths lay eggs on the apple exocarp and larvae burrow within the fruit causing economic losses to fruit growers.Organic apple orchards in San Luis Obispo, CA currently have three codling moth, Cydia pomonella,control options commercially available including granulovirus (CpVG), spinosad, and mating disruption. In field tests on apple (Malus), we compare percent fruit injury between treatments of granulovirus (2.43 oz/ha Cyd-X® organically approved, Certis USA, Columbia MD), spinosad (4.05 oz/ha Entrust® Naturalyte® organically approved WP formation, Dow AgroSciences, Indianapolis IN), and a control. We also compared mating disruption in form of codling moth Codlemone® sex pheromone (257 ties/ha (506 mg)/acre Isomate®-OFM TT organically approved Pacific Biocontrol Corporation Vancouver, WA) against a control. Delta taps and 1 mg pheromone lures were used to trap males and track the degree day (DD) model for the two orchard’s codling moth populations to determine application timing for each treatment. A preliminary DD model was used based on the University of California at Davis Agricultural Extension codling moth DD model. During 2016 trialsno detectible control was provided by spray treatments with an average fruit injury of 26% control, 23% granulovirus, 28% spinosad. During 2016 trialsno detectible control was provided by mating disruption with an average fruit injury of 16% control and 16% pheromone. During 2017 trials there was detectible control provided by the treatments to the crop by both spray treatmentsand pheromone ties. 2017 average fruit injury for spray treatments was 51% control, 20% granulovirus, and 14% spinosad. 2017 average fruit injury for mating disruption was 29% control and 6% pheromone. Data suggest underlying relationship between location specific climate factors, cultivars, codling moth populations, and treatment efficacy.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".