Susceptibility of three Colombian <i>Aedes aegypti</i> Linnaeus (Diptera: Culicidae) populations to a <i>Lysinibacillus sphaericus</i> formulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The increased incidence of vector‐borne diseases and insecticide resistance in mosquitos constitute public health concerns in the tropics. Biological control is an effective alternative in the management of Aedes aegypti Linnaeus populations. Lysinibacillus sphaericus a bacterium proved to be harmless for non‐target organisms has shown promising entomopathogenic activity. In Colombia, the control of A. aegypti using L. sphaericus has not been contemplated as part of vector control programmes. To assess the susceptibility of three A. aegypti populations to a L. sphaericus formulation consisting of vegetative cells of 2362 and III(3)7 strains, simulated‐field bioassays were conducted in the municipalities of Ricaurte in Cundinamarca and Tauramena in Casanare, as well as in the municipal inspection of San Joaquin, Cundinamarca. Sixty larvae were deposited in a test device, which contained nine litres of chlorine‐free tap water and 100 ml of the bacterial formulation (109 CFU/ml). Six replicates were set‐up for treatment with bacteria and for the control. Larvae mortality was recorded at 24 and 48 hr. The three A. aegypti populations were susceptible to L. sphaericus formulation with a mortality rate higher than 90% at 48 hr. The formulation of L. sphaericus comprised of vegetative cells of 2362 and III(3)7 strains showed promising results that could guarantee the implementation of this formulation to control of A. aegypti populations.
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) | 0.001 | 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".