Synergism between ammonia and phenols for <i>Hybomitra</i> tabanids in northern and temperate Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Baits for tabanids (Diptera: Tabanidae) were tested in the Northwest Territories (60 °N) and Ontario (45 °N) using Nzi traps. Tests targeted ammonia, phenols/cow urine and octenol. About 200 000 tabanids were captured in 15 experiments with a maximum capture of 4182 in one trap in 1 day. In the Northwest Territories, phenols, urine and octenol were effective single baits for only some species. At both locations, adding ammonia to an unbaited or an octenol-baited trap had no effect on catches. By contrast, catches were increased for several species when ammonia was combined with phenols or urine. In Ontario, including ammonia in various baits increased catches by 1.5- to 3.4-fold relative to octenol alone for three Hybomitra and one Tabanus species. Synergism between ammonia and phenols was clearly demonstrated for the dominant Hybomitra species in Ontario (Hybomitra lasiophthalma), but not for the dominant species in the Northwest Territories (Hybomitra epistates). In five other northern Hybomitra species, baits of ammonia and/or octenol in combination with phenols resulted in a 1.7- to 4.1-fold increase in catch relative to an unbaited trap. Further tests of ammonia as a synergist for biting flies may prove useful in, for example, tsetse, which respond strongly to phenols.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".