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 sphaericu s 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 (10 9 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".