MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Attraction of ambrosia and bark beetles to coast live oaks infected by <i>Phytophthora ramorum</i>

2008· article· en· W2144162174 on OpenAlexaff
Brice A. McPherson, Nadir Erbilgin, Pavel Švihra, Andrew J. Storer, Richard B. Standiford

Bibliographic record

VenueAgricultural and Forest Entomology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsPhytophthora ramorumBiologyAmbrosia beetleAmbrosiaBark (sound)PermethrinBark beetleBotanyCankerHost (biology)HorticultureCurculionidaeEcologyPhytophthoraPesticide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract 1 Sudden oak death is caused by the apparently introduced oomycete, Phytophthora ramorum. We investigated the role of bark and ambrosia beetles in disease progression in coast live oaks Quercus agrifolia . 2 In two Marin County, California sites, 80 trees were inoculated in July 2002 with P. ramorum and 40 were wounded without inoculation. Half of the trees in each group were sprayed with the insecticide permethrin [cyclopropanecarboxylic acid, 3‐(2,2‐dichloroethenyl)‐2,2‐dimethyl‐(3‐phenoxyphenyl) methyl ester] to prevent ambrosia and bark beetle attacks, and then were sprayed twice per year thereafter. After each treatment, sticky traps were placed on only the permethrin‐treated trees. Beetles were collected periodically in 2003. 3 Inoculated trees accounted for 95% of all beetles trapped. The ambrosia beetles Monarthrum scutellare and Xyleborinus saxeseni and the western oak bark beetle Pseudopityophthorus pubipennis were the most abundant of the seven species trapped. 4 Permethrin treatment delayed initiation of beetle attacks and significantly reduced the mean number of attacks per tree. Beetles did not attack any wounded or noncankered inoculated trees. 5 Trees with larger cankers trapped more beetles early in the disease. Once permethrin lost effectiveness, the number of beetle entrance tunnels was a more reliable predictor of subsequent trap catch than was canker size. 6 Beetles were initially attracted to P. ramorum cankers in response to kairomones generated in the host‐pathogen interaction. After beetles attacked the permethrin‐treated trees, aggregation pheromones most probably were the principal factor in beetle colonization behaviour.

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)0.000
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 score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations31
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgricultural and Forest EntomologySame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207