MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Spatial relationships between two <i>Agriotes</i> click‐beetle species and wireworms in agricultural fields

2007· article· en· W2029150729 on OpenAlexafffund
Rod P. Blackshaw, Robert S. Vernon

Bibliographic record

VenueAgricultural and Forest Entomology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK GovernmentAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaCanadian Food Inspection Agency
KeywordsBiologyPEST analysisEcologySpatial distributionSpatial ecologyPheromone trapLarvaSex pheromoneSampling (signal processing)PheromoneZoologyStatisticsBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract 1 The production of new insect pheromones for pest monitoring proceeds at a greater rate than their evaluation, with the consequential possibility of premature introduction. Fundamental to their successful deployment is the determination of a consistent relationship between adult male pheromone trap catches and pest damage. In the present study, adult pheromone traps and larval bait traps were used to examine spatial relationships between two species of Agriotes beetle and wireworms at the field scale. 2 The spatial distributions of adult male Agriotes lineatus and Agriotes obscurus in two fields were determined and compared with the distribution of their larvae. Data were assembled as spatially referenced trap counts, and analysed for evidence of aggregation and clustering using Spatial Analysis by Distance IndicEs (SADIE) methodology. Spatial stabilities of adult populations between sampling dates were tested using association tests. Spatial and quantitative linkages between adult and larval trap catches were also tested. Moreover, a new way of adapting SADIE methodologies is presented for situations where two datasets within an area do not share the same sampling points. 3 There was no significant difference in variance : mean relationships for the two species but there were differences in their spatial distributions, and this is a definitive example of the general argument stating that it is important to consider spatial as well as count data in ecological studies. The spatial distribution of A. lineatus varied between sampling occasions at both sites whereas A. obscurus had consistently significant SADIE indices over time at one site, and adult catches could also be linked to larval distributions and counts. It is proposed that observed differences between the two species can be explained by interference between traps and dissimilar movement rates. There was some evidence of an edge effect at the field boundaries. 4 The distance between pheromone traps is related to the time that elapses before adjacent traps interfere with trap captures and this limits the detection of statistically significant spatial patterns. It is shown that the current practice of adding trap counts for different Agriotes species and treating them as numerically equivalent is insufficiently robust to be recommended at this stage. 5 The implications for the use of sex pheromone traps in wireworm pest management are considered. It is concluded that pheromone traps, as currently used, will not reliably indicate where wireworms occur in a field, and that the complexity of interpreting adult male trap counts limits quantitative predictions of population size.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.944

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations55
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgricultural and Forest EntomologySame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207