Efficacy of 4-allylanisole-based products for protecting individual loblolly pines from <i>Dendroctonus frontalis</i> Zimmermann (Coleoptera: Scolytidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated the effectiveness of 4-allylanisole (4AA) as a protective treatment for loblolly pines threatened by the southern pine beetle, Dendroctonus frontalis Zimmermann. Three products were evaluated in combination with two methods that promoted attack of trees by D. frontalis. One method used attractive semiochemicals and the other decreased host resistance, both of which are important scenarios for implementing protective treatments of individual trees. Each method promoted mass attack of unprotected control trees, thus providing a statistically verifiable challenge to the candidate protectants. In trees with increased susceptibility, mortality ranged from 63% (untreated) to 77% (4AA applied in paintball formulation), and two products appeared to alter the relative composition of scolytid species that attacked at two heights; however, tree mortality was unaffected. In trees challenged with semiochemical attractants, mortality ranged from 54% (4AA released from vials) to 82% (untreated and paintball application of 4AA). Although 4AA consistently reduces catch of D. frontalis in traps, it was not efficacious for protecting individual loblolly pines over a period of 30 or 60 days in this experiment.
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) | 0.001 | 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".