Mark–recapture of <i>Agriotes obscurus</i> and <i>Agriotes lineatus</i> with dense arrays of pheromone traps in an undisturbed grassland population reservoir
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The present study was conducted using mark–released populations of male Agriotes obscurus ( AO ) and Agriotes lineatus ( AL ) adults to simulate the spatial and temporal capture rates of wild beetle populations in dense arrays of pheromone traps in a confined, nonfarmed habitat. Two parallel rows of traps, spaced 3 m apart along corridors of grassy dyke, recaptured 85.6% of AO and 77.8% of AL with arrays of their respective pheromone traps, mostly within the first week of release. In arrays of mixed AO and AL traps, recapture rates were 77.8% and 83.3%, respectively. In arrays with only AO traps, 31.2% of AL males released within the arrays mistakenly entered the AO traps, which declined to only 2.2% when released in arrays with both AO and AL traps. In arrays with only AL traps, only 0.7% of released AO were mistakenly taken in the AL traps, and only 0.3% mistakenly entered AL traps in mixed AO and AL trap arrays. Between 34.4–38.9% of AO and 21.1–25.6% of AL released in areas immediately adjacent to the trapping arrays were caught, mostly in the outermost traps. The implications of these results for determining the efficacy of mass trapping as a click beetle management approach are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".