Heat as a phytosanitary treatment for the brown spruce longhorn beetle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The brown spruce longhorn beetle (BSLB), Tetropium fuscum (Fabr.), is native to Europe but has recently been discovered in Halifax, Nova Scotia, where efforts are underway to eradicate it. If attempts to eradicate this beetle are unsuccessful, phytosanitary measures will have to be developed to ensure continued access to markets. We carried out studies to determine the lethal temperatures for different BSLB life stages in spruce. The beetles were exposed to different temperatures for various time periods in lumber of low and high moisture content. Adults died after 30 and 15 minutes exposure to 40 and 45°C, respectively, and pupae died after 30 minutes exposure to 45°C. Larvae required exposure to 50°C for 30 minutes (or 55°C for 15 minutes) to ensure 100% mortality. Larval survival was slightly higher in wood with low moisture content. The study was repeated a second year for the 50°C/30-minute and 55°C/15-minute treatments for larvae and the 45°C/30-minute for pupae at very low moisture (12-15% oven-dry basis) content, with similar results. Our results demonstrate that heat treatment is an effective phytosanitary method to ensure that wood does not contain any live BSLB.Current phytosanitary guidelines listed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in its directive "Canadian Heat-treated Wood Products Certification Program (CHTWPCP) for Export" (56ºC, 30 minutes) are more than adequate to ensure BSLB-free wood. Key words: brown spruce longhorn beetle, heat treatment, hygrothermal stress, Tetropium fuscum, wood borers
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".