Phosphine: an eco-friendly alternative for management of wheat storage insects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Methyl bromide (MB) fumigant has been phased out in many countries honouring ‘Montreal Protocol’. Reports on phosphine fumigant efficacy under different ecological zones in India are scanty. Field fumigation trials were conducted on 5 Metric Tons of wheat stacks per replication of a treatment for testing phosphine efficacy against laboratory cultured and resident population of Tribolium castanium , Sitophilus oryzae , and Rhyzopertha dominica . The trials were organized in triplicate including control at two locations with varying climate locations namely, Pithoragarh and Delhi using conventional 56% tablet (2 and 3 tablet/MT) and 77.5% granular (1.0 and 1.5 g phosphine/m 3 ) formulations of Aluminium phosphide (AlP) for 7 and 10-days exposure periods for each dosage. Phosphine concentration was monitored every 24 hours till end of the exposure periods. Insect mortality of laboratory culture and resident infestation was observed as 100% in both the exposure periods using all dosages of phosphine. No emergence of insects was observed till 60 days after treatment at both the locations, indicating mortality of all available life stages of insects during the exposure periods. Minimum effective phosphine concentration for controlling all life stages of S. oryzae , R. dominica and T castaneum was observed 500-600 ppm for 7-days exposure at 25°-27°C and humidity 38-45%, at 1.5 g phosphine/m 3 . Hence, phosphine can be an effective alternative to methyl bromide fumigant for wheat stored grain insects at different climatic conditions.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".