Identifying (<I>E</I>)-4,8-Dimethyl-1,3,7-Nonatriene Plus Acetic Acid as a New Lure for Male and Female Codling Moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Laboratory and field studies were conducted to measure the responses of adult codling moth, Cydia pomonella (L.), to several plant volatiles presented alone and in combination with acetic acid. Plant volatiles included ethyl (E,Z)-2,4-decadienoate (pear ester), (E)-β-farnesene, (Z)-3-hexenyl acetate, ± farnesol, and (E)-4,8-dimethyl-l,3,7-nonatriene (DMNT). Male codling moth exhibited upwind behavioral responses to each compound in flight tunnel tests with acetic acid > DMNT > ± farnesol > (Z)-3-hexenyl acetate > pear ester > (E)-β-farnesene. In apple orchards, however, only pear ester was an effective lure when used alone with clear pane traps. Choice tests in a flight tunnel with delta traps baited with DMNT plus acetic acid caught significantly more male and females than unbaited traps and significantly more females than DMNT-baited traps. Combining pear ester or DMNT loaded in septa lures with separate vials containing acetic acid significantly increased both male and female moth catch compared with the plant volatile alone, acetic acid alone, and unbaited pane traps in field trials. Similar results were not obtained with the other three plant volatiles. Septum loadings of 1 and 10 mg with either pear ester or DMNT in combination with acetic acid caught similar numbers of moths in orange delta traps. Sixty to 75% of the moths captured in traps baited with DMNT plus acetic acid were females. Moth catches in traps baited with DMNT plus acetic acid were ≈40% of catches in similar traps baited with pear ester plus acetic acid.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".