Assessing New Tools for Management of the Pepper Weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in Greenhouse and Field Pepper Crops
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pepper weevil, Anthonomus eugenii Cano, is an economically important pest of field and greenhouse pepper crops in North America. In this study, a series of insecticides covering a broad-spectrum of insecticidal modes of action were assessed for their potential in managing the pepper weevil under laboratory and greenhouse conditions. To accomplish this, laboratory mini-spray tower and greenhouse cage trials were conducted that evaluated the efficacy of 16 conventional, reduced-risk, and microbial insecticides. In laboratory trials, adult weevils were sprayed with insecticides, placed on treated leaves within a cup cage, and were monitored for their survival over 10 d. Of the 16 insecticides tested, 8 provided greater than 60% weevil control, a threshold considered necessary for including products in further greenhouse testing. In greenhouse trials, adult weevil mortality, bud and foliar damage, bud and fruit abortion, and subsequent weevil offspring emergence were measured following each of three weekly insecticide applications. The most efficacious insecticides included kaolin clay and mineral oil, which performed as well as the thiamethoxam-positive control, and incurred 70 and 55% of adult weevil mortality, respectively. Additionally, kaolin clay and mineral oil reduced offspring weevil emergence by 59 and 54%, respectively, compared with untreated controls. Despite the clear challenge that controlling this pest represents, this study has identified useful new tools for the integrated management of the pepper weevil, which may accelerate the rate at which these become available for use in greenhouse and field pepper production.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".