Impacts of the Ban on the Soil-Applied Fumigant Methyl Bromide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The loss of the soil fumigant methyl bromide (MeBr) and adoption of soil fumigant alternatives has been challenging for farmers, particularly for those crops in which pathogens previously controlled by MeBr have emerged as significant problems, but it has resulted in some unanticipated benefits for the scientific community and the environment. Applauded as one of the most effective environmental agreements to date, the universally accepted Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances has had a significant impact on the environment, reducing the release of halogenated compounds from anthropogenic sources enough to mitigate global warming by an estimated 1.1°C by 2021. The funding associated with various MeBr transition programs has increased collaboration across scientific disciplines, commodity groups, industry, and regulatory agencies. Chemical alternatives and improved application strategies, including the development of gas-retentive agricultural films, coupled with sound efficacy data and grower ingenuity have resulted in the sustained production of many of the impacted crops; although there has been some loss of acreage and value, particularly for Florida fumigated crops, for some, value has continued to increase, allowing production to continue. The loss of a single, broad-spectrum tool for pest control has led to a deeper understanding of the specific pest complexes impacting these at-risk crops, as well as the development of new, biologically based management tools for their control while increasing our understanding of the role of the soil microbiome in pest control and crop production.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".