Rock dust product for managing two-spotted spider mites (Acari: Tetranychidae) on grapevines (Vitaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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) | 0.001 | 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".