Models for Assessing the Male Annihilation of<i>Bactrocera</i>spp. with Methyl Eugenol Baits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Models were presented that describe the attraction and killing at toxic baits or traps of adult males and females of an insect pest species. These models were used to test the effects of the following factors on ease of control: female monogamy versus polygamy, attraction of only males versus both sexes, initiating mating before versus after responding to baits/traps, the ability of males to mate many times each day versus only once per day, and the existence of a time lag of several days before females can mate versus mating immediately after emergence. The models indicated that mating before trapping or the ability of males to mate many times each day will probably render this control method ineffective. The other factors tested (mating habit and specifics of attraction) had little effect on the efÞciency of trapping males as a control method. We then included age structure and a refractory period for virgin females before they can mate. The models were then made specific to Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) (Diptera: Tephritidae) by using parameter values derived from the literature. The results of the models imply that the attraction and killing of large numbers of males is rather ineffective to suppress populations. However, the combination of attracting both males and females can be more effective than attracting either sex alone. The increased attraction of females to methyl eugenol baits that has been observed with the declining presence of males during Male Annihilation Technique campaigns may explain the reported effectiveness against invasive Bactrocera pest species.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".