MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005263715 · doi:10.1093/amt/tsaa018

Evaluation of Torac, Warrior, and Coragen for First-Generation Colorado Potato Beetle Management in Wisconsin, 2019

2020· article· en· W3005263715 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Benjamin Z Bradford, Scott A Chapman, Russell L. Groves

Bibliographic record

VenueArthropod management tests · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyColorado potato beetleBotanyPEST analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This trial was performed to evaluate the first-generation Colorado potato beetle control of Torac and Torac + PBO Twin-Pack relative to industry standards and an untreated check. This trial was conducted at the University of Wisconsin’s Hancock Agricultural Research Station, located 1.1 miles west of Hancock, Wisconsin (44.112332°N, −89.534886°W), on a loamy sand soil in 2019. Potato Solanum tuberosum cv. ‘Yukon Gold’ B-size tubers were machine planted as a solid planting on April 16, 2019. Four replicates of eight experimental plots were arranged in an RCBD region. Plots measured two rows (6 ft) wide by 20 ft long. Plots were separated by one untreated guard row and 8 ft of tilled ground along rows. The entire trial measured 108 ft wide (including a 12 ft drive alley along the center) by 120 ft long. Standard fertilizer inputs and fungicide treatments were applied to maintain plant health. Experimental insecticide treatments included Torac at a low and high rate, Torac + piperonyl butoxide (PBO), Torac + Warrior II, Warrior II, and Coragen. All treatments included either Silwet, NuFilm P, or methylated seed oil (MSO) added at 0.25% v/v as adjuvants. Foliar applications were performed on Jun 19 after 50% CPB egg hatch was observed, and reapplied 7 d later on Jun 26. Applications were made using a CO2-pressurized backpack sprayer operating at 30 psi, equipped with a 6 ft boom with 4 flat-fan nozzles (TeeJet XR8002VS) spaced 18 in. apart, and delivering 20 gal/ac while travelling at 3.5 ft/s Colorado Potato Beetle (CPB), Leptinotarsa decemlineata, populations were assessed on 10 randomly selected plants in the center of each plot for the following life stages: adults, egg masses, small larvae (first and second instars), and large larvae (third and fourth instars). CPB counts were performed 2, 6, 13, 22, and 27 d after initial foliar treatment applications. Insect counts were log(x + 1) transformed and percent defoliation ratings were arcsine square root transformed prior to statistical analysis to satisfy assumptions of normality. Treatment main effects were determined using ANOVA. Means separation letter codes were generated using Tukey’s HSD procedure (α = 0.05). All plots achieved high levels of emergence and colonization and no signs of phytotoxicity were observed among any of the treatments. First-generation (21 Jun, 25 Jun, 2 Jul) CPB adult counts were generally low and did not vary significantly between treatments (Table 1), except on 2 Jul (P = 0.03). Second-generation (11 Jul, 16 Jul) adult counts were higher on 11 Jul in the experimental treatments relative to the check and significantly higher on 16 Jul (P < 0.0001) due to complete defoliation of the check plots by that time. Peak small larvae (first and second instar) activity occurred on 21 Jun, 25 Jun, and 2 Jul (Table 2), with the Torac + Warrior II treatment performing significantly better than the check on 21 Jun (P = 0.05), the Torac + PBO, Torac + Warrior II, and Coragen treatments outperforming the check on 25 Jun (P = 0.01), and only the Coragen treatment outperforming the check on 2 Jul (P < 0.0001). Peak large larvae activity was observed on 2 Jul and 11 Jul (Table 3), with only the Coragen treatment outperforming the check on 2 Jul (P < 0.0001). On 11 Jul, both the Torac + PBO and Coragen treatments kept large larvae numbers significantly lower than the other experimental treatments (P < 0.0001), but the untreated check plots were completely defoliated at this point, so no comparison to the check can be made for this date. Large differences in plot defoliation were observed starting on 2 Jul (Table 4), with all experimental treatments performing significantly better than the check (P < 0.0001). On 11 Jul, the check plots were completely defoliated, while the lowest defoliation was observed in the Torac + PBO, Torac (high rate), and Coragen plots (P<.0001). By 16 Jul, only the Coragen treatment was maintaining low levels of defoliation (5%), with all other treatments greater than 50% defoliation (P < 0.0001). Overall the Coragen treatment had the best performance well into the second generation, followed by the Torac + PBO treatment, which began to fail by the last count date (16 Jul).1 Means followed by same letter code are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05). *P-value followed by an asterisk indicates a significant block effect. aUntreated plots were completely defoliated by 11 Jul. Means followed by same letter code are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05). *P-value followed by an asterisk indicates a significant block effect. aUntreated plots were completely defoliated by 11 Jul. Means followed by same letter code are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05) aUntreated plots were completely defoliated by 11 Jul. Means followed by same letter code are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05) aUntreated plots were completely defoliated by 11 Jul. Means followed by same letter code are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05) aUntreated plots were completely defoliated by 11 Jul. Means followed by same letter code are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05) aUntreated plots were completely defoliated by 11 Jul. Means followed by same letter code are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05). *P-value followed by an asterisk indicates a significant block effect. aUntreated plots were completely defoliated by 11 Jul. Means followed by same letter code are not significantly different (Tukey’s HSD, α = 0.05). *P-value followed by an asterisk indicates a significant block effect. aUntreated plots were completely defoliated by 11 Jul.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthropod management testsSame topicInsect Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207