Exploring the Role of Supplemental Foods for Improved Greenhouse Biological Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Small modifications in greenhouse agroenvironments can have a big impact on the success of biological control programs. For instance, the application of supplemental foods during and after the release of natural enemies onto crop plants, could considerably improve their long-term reproductive and population growth prospects. As such, food supplementation represents a valuable biological control supportive strategy, helping to grow natural enemy populations before pest establishment, akin to creating a standing-army to defend crops against future pest invasions. In many places of the world, food supplementation represents a relatively new but growing component or biological control research, with increasingly better resources available to guide producers, IPM practitioners, or researchers wanting to apply or optimize such strategies to their local agents and environments. In this review, we summarize the current stage of knowledge associated with various supplemental food types, which work best to support specific beneficial arthropods as well as some tools and techniques for successfully applying this biological control-enhancing strategy. We also summarize some current challenges to the use of supplemental foods and discuss what future research is needed to adapt and optimize food supplementation for a diversity of natural enemy species.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".