MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107430797 · doi:10.4039/ent132107-1

DISRUPTION OF MATING IN THE SPOTTED TENTIFORM LEAFMINER (LEPIDOPTERA: GRACILLARIIDAE) USING SYNTHETIC SEX PHEROMONE

2000· article· en· W2107430797 on OpenAlexaffabout
R. M. Trimble, C.A. Tyndall

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Entomologist · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect Pheromone Research and Control
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsMating disruptionGracillariidaeSex pheromonePheromoneLepidoptera genitaliaBiologyHorticulturePheromone trapTortricidaeBotanyMalusMatingZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The potential for using synthetic sex pheromone to disrupt mating of spotted tentiform leafminers, Phyllonorycter blancardella (F.), was evaluated in four experimental and two commercial apple, Malus domestica (Borkh) (Rosaceae), orchards in Ontario during 1992 and 1993. The average disruption index [ i . e ., (total number of moths trapped in control plot – total number of moths trapped in pheromone-treated plot)/total number of moths trapped in control plot × 100] was 80.7% when leafminer pheromone, ( E )-10-dodecen-1-yl-acetate, was evaporated into square, approximately 400-m 2 plots. During the 2-year study, pheromone was evaporated into the pheromone-treated plots at an average hourly rate of 39.6 mg/ha. There was no relationship between the estimated release rate of pheromone and average temperature. There was a negative linear relationship between the disruption index and leafminer density, as measured by the number of moths trapped in the control plot. There was no relationship between the disruption index and the estimated release rate of pheromone. Our results suggest that it may be possible to control the spotted tentiform leafminer using sex-pheromone-mediated mating disruption.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations6
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian EntomologistSame topicInsect Pheromone Research and ControlFrench-language works237,207