MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3210582112 · doi:10.3389/fagro.2021.701974

Effect of Neo-Boost Pesticide on Mortality and Development of Different Life Stages of Two-Spotted Spider Mite, Tetranychus urticae

2021· article· en· W3210582112 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Agronomy · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsAgri-Neo (Canada)Western University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of CanadaNorth Carolina State University
KeywordsTetranychus urticaeSpider mitePesticideAcaricideAbamectinToxicologyFungicideBiologyTetranychusHorticultureLarvaActive ingredientSpiderPEST analysisBotanyAgronomyEcologyPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The two-spotted spider mite, Tetranychus urticae , is a polyphagous agricultural pest that feeds on over a thousand plant species and more than 150 crops. Its status as an agricultural pest is exacerbated by its outstanding potential to evolve resistance to pesticides. The existence of multiresistant mite populations challenges mite management and creates a need for the development of pesticides with novel modes of action. In this study, we evaluated the acaricidal activity of Neo-Boost, a pesticide registered as a bactericide/fungicide/insecticide/miticide. Neo-Boost formulation contains three active ingredients: potassium silicate, sodium percarbonate and tetraacetylethylenediamine. In contact with water, the latter ingredients generate peroxyacetic acid, a potent contact bactericide and fungicide. Using the recommended field dose, we tested contact and residual effects of Neo-Boost on T. urticae egg, larval, and adult life stages. We found that Neo-Boost had no ovicidal effect. When tested on larvae, Neo-Boost caused 87% mortality over 48 hours post-treatment that was comparable to the positive control AGRI-mek SC (active ingredient abamectin), in addition to delaying larval developmental progression. On adult mites, Neo-Boost acted as a deterrent and caused 35% mortality (an intermediate effect compared to the positive control AGRI-mek SC). We also tested the proposed ability of Neo-Boost to induce a systemic response, however, it had no priming effect on treated tomato plants against mites. Of the individual Neo-Boost components tested, peroxyacetic acid and potassium silicate were not effective in any assay. However, sodium percarbonate, surfactant, and other non-listed components were sufficient for the full effectiveness of Neo-Boost formulations. Additionally, phytotoxicity of Neo-Boost was rare and minor when it occurred. Overall, despite the inefficiency of some compounds, the Neo-Boost formulation, either in its original or simplified formulation, may be useful for mite control on crops that are destined for fresh human consumption or medicinal use.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.464
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it