Experts’ opinion on the sustainable use of nematicides in Mediterranean intensive horticulture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim of study: Root-knot nematodes are considered a common limiting factor to reaching premium quality and economically viable yields in horticultural crops. Soil disinfestation with agrochemical fumigants has been the main nematode control method until their recent ban due to environmental and social concerns. This paper explores farmers and agricultural advisors’ opinion and preferences on the sustainable use of available nematode control methods, considering sustainability as an integration of nematicidal effectiveness, reduction of environmental harmful effects and preservation of human health. Area of study: This study has been carried out between farm advisors of intensive horticultural crop areas in Southern Spain. Material and methods: Farm advisors’ opinion and preferences on the use of nematicides was evaluated following an opinion survey and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method. The analysis done was exploratory. Main results: Providing that current available control methods give enough nematicidal effectiveness to get a profitable yield, the group of farm advisors showed a great consciousness on the use of sustainable alternatives for nematode control in intensive horticultural crops, prioritizing biosolarization as the first option, followed by biopesticides and fumigant nematicides in third place. The use of ozone and non-fumigant nematicides with high toxicity profiles were considered the last options, but new generation nematicides with lower ecotoxicity profiles are also considered as an important tool in sustainable nematode management. Research highlights: These results provide a prediction of farmers' responses to the sustainable use of nematicides promoted by the European Union when agrochemical fumigants are banned.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".