MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7110190440 · doi:10.5539/jas.v18n1p30

Biopesticide for Pest Control and Drought Stress in Potato Crop

2025· article· W7110190440 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect Pest Control Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiopesticidePEST analysisPest controlPesticideKaempferolCrop

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The excessive use of synthetic insecticides and the environmental stress in the crops led us to determine pest control by a biopesticide that induces the concentration of nordiguaracetic acid (NDGA), kaempferol and quercetin as defence activators in the potato crop. A biopesticide was applied to four potato genotypes: Fiana, Silvestre, Norteña and 09-37, under rainfed conditions, the repellent biopesticide was applied to the 16 DAE and the biofungicide to the 27 DAE, the concentration of kaempferol, quercetin and NDGA before applying the biopesticides was made at 14 DAE and the second sample was 37 DAE after applying the doses of the product, it was analyzed by completely random design with 4 treatments and 4 repetitions. The repellency of the potato flea beetle (Epitrix cucumeris), the concentration of ingredients in leaves and the absorption of the biopesticide were determined. The repellency at 27 DAE was 93.5% and at 37 DAE was 97.5%, there was no presence of diseases, at 14 DEA, no incidence of the ingredients was found in the crop, at 37 DAE, the 09-35 genotype had the highest concentration of NDAG with 558.75 mg/kg with 54.09% absorption and kaempferol with 135.92 mg/kg with absorption of 98%, the Silvestre variety with 9404.3 mg/kg with absorption of 64.37%, for the rest of the genotypes are significantly higher. The effect on repellency could be because the insect was not adapted to these ingredients and the absence of diseases to the defence activators and their absorption in the plant, so the plants did not show drought stress.

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)0.001
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 score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicInsect Pest Control StrategiesFrench-language works237,207