Susceptibility of codling moth in southwestern Ontario apple orchards to currently recommended insecticides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research examined the susceptibility of codling moth ('Cydia pomonella' L.) from 2008-2010 to registereded insecticides-azinphosmethyl, phosmet, thiacloprid, acetamiprid, methoxyfenozide, novaluron, spinetoram, and chloranthraniliprole used in Ontario apple orchards. Discriminatory concentrations were determined for application in future resistance monitoring for adult topical and larval diet bioassays. Azinphosmethyl and phosmet were generally less toxic than all other insecticides. Thiacloprid, acetamiprid, chlorantraniliprole, methoxyfenozide, and novaluron had moderate toxicity. Spinetoram was the most toxic. Some field populations exposed to azinphosmethyl and thiacloprid had lower mortality in adults and larvae compared to insecticide-susceptible populations. Larvae exposed to methoxyfenozide also had lower mortality, but were still susceptible to chlorantraniliprole. Results suggested the presence of tolerance to these registered insecticides in some Ontario codling moth populations. It was conclude that newer classes of insecticides, such as spinosyns and anthranilic diamides need to be incorporated into codling moth control programs with continual insecticide resistance monitoring. Control programs should also include rotation between different insecticide classes during a growing season and utilization of mating disruption to reduce selection for insecticide resistance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".