MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sampling plan for the coffee leaf miner <i>Leucoptera coffeella</i> with sex pheromone traps

2008· article· en· W2020302451 on OpenAlexaff
Tito Bacca, Eraldo Lima, Marcelo C. Picanço, R. N. C. Guedes, J. H. M. Viana

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Entomology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect Pheromone Research and Control
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoDepartamento Administrativo de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (COLCIENCIAS)
KeywordsPheromone trapBiologyPEST analysisSampling (signal processing)Leaf minerToxicologyPopulation densitySex pheromonePopulationHorticultureBotanyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The population density of the coffee leaf miner Leucoptera coffeella (Guérin‐Méneville & Perrottet) (Lep., Lyonetiidae) can be estimated using pheromone traps in coffee fields as male capture reflects this pest damage based on previous correlational study. However, the spatial distribution of pheromone traps and their density are necessary to optimize the sampling procedure with pheromone traps. Therefore, the objectives of the present study were to determine the pheromone trap density required per hectare to sample coffee leaf miner populations and to determine the spatial distribution of the males of this pest species. The males were sampled every 8 days in 12 consecutive evaluations. Taylor’s power law and frequency distributions were used to recognize the distribution of the male capture data, which followed a negative binomial distribution. A common K was obtained, allowing the establishment of a single conventional sampling plan for the 12 fields investigated. The adjusted sampling plan requires eight traps in an area of 30 ha for a 25% precision error. Kriging‐generated maps allowed the simulation of male captures for 8, 12 and 20 traps per 30 ha and the results were compared with those obtained with absolute sampling resulting in R2‐values of 0.30, 0.57 and 0.60 respectively. The traps were able to identify the more highly infested areas within the field and are a precise and efficient tool for sampling populations of L. coffeella.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations17
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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