Selective manipulation of predators using pheromones: responses to frontalin and ipsdienol pheromone components of bark beetles in the Great Lakes region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract 1 One proposed approach to improving biological control of bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae; alt. Curculionidae: Scolytinae) is to manipulate predator movement using semiochemicals. However, selective manipulation is impeded by attraction of both predators and pests to bark beetle pheromones. 2 The primary bark beetle affecting pine plantations in Wisconsin, U.S.A., is the pine engraver, Ips pini (Say). Other herbivores include Ips grandicollis (Eichhoff) and Dryophthorus americanus Bedel (Curculionidae). The predominant predators are the beetles Thanasimus dubius (Cleridae) and Platysoma cylindrica (Histeridae). 3 We conducted field assays using two enantiomeric ratios of ipsdienol, and frontalin plus α‐pinene. Ipsdienol is the principal pheromone component of I. pini , and frontalin is produced by a number of Dendroctonus species. α‐Pinene is a host monoterpene commonly incorporated into commercial frontalin lures. 4 Thanasimus dubius was attracted to frontalin plus α‐pinene, and also to racemic ipsdienol. By contrast, I. pini was attracted to racemic ipsdienol, but showed no attraction to frontalin plus α‐pinene. Platysoma cylindrica was attracted to 97%‐(–)‐ipsdienol and, to a lesser extent, racemic ipsdienol, but not to frontalin plus α‐pinene. Ips grandicollis was attracted to frontalin plus α‐pinene but not to ipsdienol. Dryophthorus americanus was attracted to both ipsdienol and frontalin plus α‐pinene. 5 This ability to selectively attract the predator T. dubius without attracting the principal bark beetle in the system, I. pini , provides new opportunities for research into augmentative biological control and basic population dynamics. Moreover, the attraction of T. dubius , but not P. cylindrica , to frontalin plus α‐pinene creates opportunities for selective manipulation of just one predator. 6 Patterns of attraction by predators and bark beetles to these compounds appear to reflect various degrees of geographical and host tree overlap with several pheromone‐producing 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".