MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Potential for mating disruption to reduce cone damage by the spruce seed moth, <i>Cydia strobilella</i>, in spruce seed orchards

2006· article· en· W1963980244 on OpenAlexaffabout
Richard Trudel, Claude Guertin, G. G. Grant

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Entomology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect Pheromone Research and Control
Canadian institutionsCanadian Forest ServiceArmand Frappier MuseumInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMating disruptionBiologyPEST analysisMatingIntegrated pest managementHorticultureSex pheromonePheromone trapInsectPest controlPheromoneBotanyAgronomyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The spruce seed moth, Cydia strobilella (L.), is a serious and widely distributed pest of spruce seed orchards in North America and Europe. Current pest management activities in seed orchards rely mainly on chemical pesticides for insect control. Mating disruption with sex pheromone is a potential alternative pest management tool for C. strobilella . In 2002, field tests confirmed that sticky traps baited with 3 μ g of (E) ‐8‐dodencenyl acetate ( E 8‐12:Ac), the sex pheromone of C. strobilella , could capture males in Quebec, a region of Canada not previously monitored for this insect. In the following years (2003–2005), grey rubber septa loaded with 0.75, 1.5, or 2.0 mg of E 8‐12:Ac were deployed separately in two white spruce seed orchards at a density of 40 and 60 dispensers/ha to test the potential for mating disruption. The results showed that the captures of male C. strobilella in the pheromone‐treated plots were reduced by up to 98%. Furthermore, at the end of the experiment in 2005, 17.3% of cones were damaged by C. strobilella in the treated plot, compared with a significantly (P &lt; 0.0001) higher 56.4% in the control plot. The results suggest that mating disruption has potential for controlling C. strobilella to protect seed cones in white spruce seed orchards.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.314
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied EntomologySame topicInsect Pheromone Research and ControlFrench-language works237,207