MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W114887883 · doi:10.37099/mtu.dc.etds/142

Detection and landing behavior of emerald ash borer, <i>Agrilus planipennis</i>, at low population density

2009· dissertation· en· W114887883 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Melissa J. Porter

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Forest ServiceMichigan Technological UniversityU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsEmerald ash borerAgrilusBuprestidaeFraxinusGeographyPopulationForestryBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The exotic emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), was first discovered in North America in southeastern Michigan, USA, and Windsor, Ontario, Canada in 2002. Significant ash (Fraxinus spp.) mortality has been caused in areas where this insect has become well established, and new infestations continue to be discovered in several states in the United States and in Canada. This beetle is difficult to detect when it invades new areas or occurs at low density. Girdled trap tree and ground surveys have been important tools for detecting emerald ash borer populations, and more recently, purple baited prism traps have been used in detection efforts. Girdled trap trees were found to be more effective than purple prism traps at detecting emerald ash borer as they acted as sinks for larvae in an area of known low density emerald ash borer infestation. The canopy condition of the trap trees was not predictive of whether they were infested or not, indicating that ground surveys may not be effective for detection in an area of low density emerald ash borer population. When landing rates of low density emerald ash borer populations were monitored on non-girdled ash trees, landing rates were higher on larger, open grown trees with canopies that contain a few dead branches. As a result of these studies, we suggest that the threshold for emerald ash borer detection using baited purple prism traps hung at the canopy base of trees is higher than for girdled trap trees. In addition, detection of developing populations of EAB may be possible by selectively placing sticky trapping surfaces on non-girdled trap trees that are the larger and more open grown trees at a site.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicForest Insect Ecology and Management→French-language works237,207→