Pest Activity and Protection Practices: Four Decades of Transformation in Quebec Apple Orchards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A group of commercial orchards from Quebec (Canada) was followed from 1977 to 2019 as part of a project to implement Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices. Collected data comprised activity of major fruit pests (from monitoring traps), fruit damage at harvest and pesticide applications, from which the annual costs and impacts of protection programs over 42 years were calculated. Activity and fruit damage in commercial orchards were compared to patterns observed in a reference insecticide-free orchard. Some insects (European apple sawfly, codling moth, apple maggot) were more prevalent in the insecticide-free orchard than in commercial orchards, while others were more prevalent in commercial orchards (oblique-banded leafroller) or as prevalent in both orchard types (tarnished plant bug). Annual fruit damage in the insecticide-free orchard was mostly from the apple maggot (up to 98%), the plum curculio (up to 90%) and the codling moth (up to 58%). The average situation was different in commercial orchards, whose damage was mostly from the plum curculio (up to 7.6%), the tarnished plant bug (up to 7.5%) and the oblique-banded leafroller (up to 1.7%). While the number of registered pesticides, the number of applications and the total cost of pesticides gradually increased from 2002 to 2019, the risks incurred, as measured by indicators of environmental and health impacts, followed a downward trend for insecticides and acaricides and varied slightly for fungicides.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".