MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415781167 · doi:10.4039/tce.2025.10031

Rock dust product for managing two-spotted spider mites (Acari: Tetranychidae) on grapevines (Vitaceae)

2025· article· en· W4415781167 on OpenAlexaff
Nicoletta Faraone, Robin Browne, N. Kirk Hillier

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Entomologist · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect Pest Control Strategies
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpiderAcaricidePEST analysisPesticideChemical controlMiteAmendmentBioassay

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Growing environmental concerns and the rise of pesticide resistance have prompted a critical need to develop alternatives to synthetic chemical insecticides. In this context, mineral-based products offer a promising solution for integrated pest management. This study examines the potential of a granite dust product as a control agent for two-spotted spider mites, Tetranychus urticae Koch (Acariformes: Tetranychidae), on grapevines, Vitis spp. (Vitaceae). Using two-choice repellency, repulsiveness, and no-choice bioassays involving substrate, foliar, and combined applications, the dust was found to effectively deter mites from moving from control leaves to treated leaves in repulsiveness tests; however, in repellency tests, some but not all mites moved from treated leaves to control leaves. Significantly higher mite mortality was observed across all dust treatments in both bioassays than in control treatments, suggesting that contact exposure to the dust and potentially the accumulation of silica in cell walls in plants treated with rock dust as a substrate amendment could render the cell walls resistant to piercing by spider mite mouthparts. The findings improve the understanding of this product’s potential for pest management.

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)0.000
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 score0.666
Threshold uncertainty score0.837

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian EntomologistSame topicInsect Pest Control StrategiesFrench-language works237,207