Quantifying Early-Season Pest Injury and Yield Protection of Insecticide Seed Treatments in Corn and Soybean Production in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 4-yr study was conducted comparing the efficacy and value of fungicide-only (FST), neonicotinoid insecticide + fungicide (NST), and diamide insecticide + fungicide (DST) seed treatments for commercial corn Zea mays L. and soybean Glycines max (L.) Merr. production in Ontario, Canada. Plant stand, plant vigor, above- and below-ground insect injury, and yield were assessed on 160 field-scale experiments. Experiments also assessed early-season insect incidence and abundance using newly legislated thresholds for NST use in Ontario and in-season destructive sampling. Wireworms (Coleoptera: Elateridae) and white grubs (Coleoptera: Scarabeidae) were frequently observed at experimental sites; however, thresholds were rarely met and injury levels rarely led to yield loss. Of 129 and 31 corn and soybean sites, 8 and 6%, respectively, had a positive yield response to NST use. Across all sites, yield response of 0.1 and -0.05 Mg ha-1 was observed with NST use in corn and soybean, respectively; however, the costs associated with NST use were recovered at only 48 and 23% of corn and soybean sites, respectively, based on average grain prices and yields during the study. Infrequent incidence of economic injury and the absence of a consistent yield response to NST and DSTs throughout the 4 yr of the study indicate that widespread use of seed-applied insecticides in corn and soybean is unlikely to provide benefit to producers. These data highlight an opportunity for reducing input costs, environmental loading, and nontarget effects without adverse outcomes for Ontario producers.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".