Response of the pine engraver, <i>Ips pini</i> (Say) (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), to conophthorin and other angiosperm bark volatiles in the avoidance of non‐hosts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract 1 Seventeen non‐host angiosperm bark volatiles, seven of which are antennally active to Ips pini (Say), the pine engraver (PE), were tested for their ability to disrupt the response of the PE to pheromone‐baited traps. 2 Four green leaf volatiles (GLVs) were tested [1‐hexanol ( Z )‐3‐hexen‐1‐ol, hexanal, and ( E )‐2‐hexenal]. None had any disruptive effect singly, as a group or in all possible blends based on functional groups, despite the fact that the two aldehydes were antennally active. These compounds may have, in some instances, actually masked the disruptive effect of other compounds. The PE thus differs in its response from other Scolytidae, including other Ips spp. 3 Eight non‐host volatiles that were antennally active to other bark beetles, but not to PEs, had no disruptive effect, validating the use of coupled gas chromatographic‐electroantennographic detection analyses to detect compounds with potential behavioural activity. 4 The bicyclic spiroacetal conophthorin, ( E )‐7‐methyl‐1,6‐dioxaspiro[4.5]decane, was disruptive when tested alone. When blends of two aldehydes [salicylaldehyde and nonanal] plus an alcohol and a phenol [benzyl alcohol and guaiacol] were combined with conophthorin, an enhanced disruptive effect was revealed. No single compound, other than conophthorin, disrupted the pheromone‐positive response and no blend that did not contain conophthorin was consistently disruptive to both sexes. Conophthorin seems to be a critical component in the non‐host angiosperm message for I. pini during its host selection phase. 5 Combination of the repellent synomones, verbenone and ipsenol, with the five disruptive non‐host volatiles may provide a potent treatment to protect trees, logs or stands from attack by the PE.
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".