MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of Chipping, Grinding, and Heat on Survival of Emerald Ash Borer, <I>Agrilus planipennis</I> (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), in Chips

2007· article· en· W2172608026 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Deborah G. McCullough, Therese M. Poland, David Cappaert, Erin L. Clark, Ivich Fraser, Victor C. Mastro, Sarah M. Smith, Christopher Pell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Economic Entomology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCollege of Engineering, Michigan State UniversityNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
KeywordsBuprestidaeEmerald ash borerAgrilusBiologyFraxinusPulverizerBark (sound)BotanyHorticultureEcologyGrindingMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), a phloem-feeding insect from Asia, was identified in 2002 as the cause of widespread ash (Fraxinus sp.) mortality in southeastern Michigan and Essex County, Ontario. Most larvae overwinter as nonfeeding prepupae in the outer sapwood or thick bark of large trees. In a series of studies, we evaluated effects of grinding, chipping, and heat treatment on survival of A. planipennis prepupae in ash material. Heavily infested ash bolts containing roughly 8,700 prepupae were processed by a horizontal grinder with either a 2.5- or 10-cm screen. There was no evidence of A. planipennis survival in chips processed with the 2.5-cm screen, but eight viable prepupae were recovered from chips processed with the 10-cm screen. We chiseled additional sentinel chips with prepupae from ash logs and buried 45 in each chip pile. In total, six prepupae in sentinel chips survived the winter, but we found no sign of adult A. planipennis emergence from the processed chips. Subsequently, we assessed prepupal survival in chips processed by a chipper or a horizontal grinder fit with 5-, 10-, or 12.7-cm screens. An estimated 1,565 A. planipennis prepupae were processed by each treatment. Chips from the chipper were shorter than chips from the grinder regardless of the screen size used. No live prepupae were found in chips produced by the chipper, but 21 viable prepupae were found in chips from the grinder. Infested wood and bark chips chiseled from logs were held in ovens at 25, 40, or 60 degrees C for 8, 24, or 48 h. Prepupal survival was consistently higher in wood chips than bark chips at 40 degrees C, whereas no prepupae survived exposure to 60 degrees C for eight or more hours. In a second study, prepupae in wood chips were exposed to 40, 45, 50, 55, or 60 degrees C for 20 or 120 min. Some prepupae survived 20 min of exposure to all temperatures. No prepupae survived exposure to 60 degrees C for 120 min, but 17% survived exposure to 55 degrees C for 120 min, suggesting that some fraction of the population may survive internationally recognized phytosanitary standards (ISPM-15) for treatment of wood packing material.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.720

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations49
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Economic EntomologySame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207