MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410193994 · doi:10.1139/cjps-2025-0016

A baseline survey of pest and beneficial insects in industrial hemp (<i>Cannabis sativa</i>) in central Alberta

2025· article· en· W4410193994 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Natalie B LaForest, Boyd A. Mori

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Plant Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect Pest Control Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Conservation Association
KeywordsCannabis sativaInsect pestPEST analysisBaseline (sea)BiologyAgroforestryToxicologyAgronomyHorticultureFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alberta is the leading producer of industrial hemp ( Cannabis sativa L.) in Canada, accounting for approximately half of the hemp production in the country. However, as the industry continues to expand, research on the agronomic practices surrounding this niche crop remain limited—particularly in the areas of insect pest management and insect community surveys. To investigate temporal and spatial changes to potential pest and beneficial insect populations, insects were collected along two transects in central Alberta industrial hemp fields in 2021 and 2022. Overall, year and collection site did not affect insect abundance; however, transect location had a significant effect with more insect families identified at the crop edge compared to the interior. The major potential insect pests identified included Lygus spp. ( L. lineolaris, L. borealis, L. elisus), Melanoplus spp. ( M. bivittatus, M. femurrubrum, M. packardii, M. sanguinipes) and different species of leafhoppers (Cicadellidae). Several important families of natural enemies of insect pests were identified and included parasitoid wasps in Chalcidoidea, Braconidae, and Ichneumonidae; predatory flies from the families Dolichopodidae and Hybotidae; and other predators from the families Anthocoridae (i.e., minute pirate bugs; Orius insidious and Orius tristicolor), Chrysopidae (i.e., lacewings; Chrysopa chi, Chrysopa oculate, Chrysoperla carnea), Nabidae (i.e., damselbugs; Nabis spp.), Geocoridae (i.e., big-eyed bugs; Geocoris atricolor, and Geocoris bullatus), and various spiders. This survey establishes a baseline of potential pest and beneficial insects associated with industrial hemp in central Alberta, supporting future research on their impact on hemp yield and development of an integrated pest management program.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score0.457

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Plant ScienceSame topicInsect Pest Control StrategiesFrench-language works237,207