RESPONSE OF CONE AND TWIG BEETLES (COLEOPTERA: SCOLYTIDAE) AND A PREDATOR (COLEOPTERA: CLERIDAE) TO PITYOL, CONOPHTHORIN, AND VERBENONE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Field studies were conducted in the United States and Canada to determine the response of the white pine cone beetle, Conophthorus coniperda (Schwarz), and the red pine cone beetle, Conophthorus resinosae Hopkins, to two potential inhibitors, conophthorin and verbenone, of pheromone communication. Trap catches of male C . coniperda and C . resinosae were significantly reduced and generally declined with increasing concentrations of conophthorin in traps baited with the pityol, a female-produced pheromone. Verbenone did not significantly reduce trap catches of C . coniperda . Conophthorin, but not verbenone, significantly reduced cone attacks by C . coniperda when placed near cone clusters. The twig beetles, Pityophthorus cariniceps LeConte and Pityophthorus puberulus (LeConte), responded to traps with pityol and α-pinene baits alone or with conophthorin. Thanasimus dubius (F) (Coleoptera: Cleridae) was attracted to the pityol and α-pinene, but conophthorin had no effect on attraction of this generalist bark beetle predator. Verbenone significantly reduced trap catches of T . dubius in pityol-baited traps.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".