Effect of sublethal concentrations of the bioinsecticide spinosyn treatment of <i>Trichoplusia ni</i> eggs on the caterpillar and its parasitoid, <scp><i>Trichogramma brassicae</i></scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND Integrated Pest Management (IPM) seeks to combine multiple management strategies for optimal pest control. One method that is successfully employed in IPM is the use of beneficial organisms. However, in severe circumstances when pest insects exceed threshold limits, insecticides may still need to be implemented. Thus, understanding the effects of insecticides on biocontrol agents, such as parasitoid wasps, is paramount to ensure sustainable agroecosystems. Sublethal effects of the bioinsecticide spinosyn, a mixture of the bacterial Saccharopolyspora spinosa (Mertz and Yao) fermentation products spinosyn A and D, on eggs of Trichoplusia ni (Hübner), a cruciferous crop pest, and its egg parasitoid Trichogramma brassicae (Bezdenko) was investigated. RESULTS The LC50 for spinosyn A and D (dissolved in ethanol) on T. ni eggs is 54 ng mL−1. Transcriptomics on caterpillars (1st and 3rd instars) that hatched from eggs treated with sublethal concentrations of spinosyn identified the upregulation of several genes encoding proteins that may be involved in insecticide resistance including detoxification enzymes, such as cytochrome P450s, glutathione S‐transferases and esterases. Sublethal T. ni egg treatments did not affect parasitoid emergence, however, there was a marked increase in the size of T. brassicae hind tibia and wings that emerged from spinosyn‐treated eggs. CONCLUSIONS For the caterpillar, treatment of eggs with sublethal concentrations of spinosyn may induce insecticide resistance mechanisms. For the parasitoids, their increased size when reared in spinosyn‐treated eggs suggests that the emerged wasps may have higher performance. © 2024 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".