Assessment of Commercially Available Pheromone Lures for Monitoring Diamondback Moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) in Canola
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sex pheromone monitoring lures from five different commercial sources were compared for their attractiveness to male diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella L. (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) in canola, Brassica napus L., fields in western Canada. Lures that had the highest pheromone release rate, as determined by aeration analyses in the laboratory, were the least attractive in field tests. Lures from all the commercial sources tested released more (Z)-11-hexadecenal than (Z)-11-hexadecenyl acetate and the most attractive lures released a significantly higher aldehyde to acetate ratio than less attractive lures. Traps baited with sex pheromone lures from APTIV Inc. (Portland, OR) and ConTech Enterprises Inc. (Delta, BC, Canada) consistently captured more male diamondback moths than traps baited with lures from the other sources tested. In two different lure longevity field trapping experiments, older lures were more attractive to male diamondback moths than fresh lures. Pheromone release from aged lures was constant at very low release rates. The most attractive commercially available sex pheromone lures tested attracted fewer diamondback moth males than calling virgin female moths suggesting that research on the development of a more attractive synthetic sex pheromone lure is warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".