Abiotic Factors and Trap Design Modulate the Performance of Traps Used to Monitor the Plum Curculio
Bibliographic record
Abstract
All published studies on effects of abiotic factors on plum curculio, Conotrachelus nenuphar (Hersbt), adults have taken a retrospective approach. Here, we present the results of experiments where factors and their levels were determined and controlled a priori. We compared the effectiveness of miniature pyramidal traps (45 by 20 by 20 cm) constructed of four kind of materials--wood, geotextile, nylon screening, and corrugated plastic--to monitor overwintered and summer adults of univoltine plum curculio. We also studied the effects of photoperiod, temperature, wind, and rain on pyramidal trap effectiveness. The experiments, which were replicated over time, were done in two controlled chambers that were divided into four sections, corresponding to simulated combinations (wind or no wind/rain or no rain). The temperatures tested (15, 20, and 25 degrees C) were randomly assigned in the chambers. During scotophase, geotextile traps captured significantly more overwintered and summer adults than traps made of other materials. The maximum proportion of captures (for overwintered and summer adults) during photophase was obtained at 25 degrees C, and it was significantly different than captures at 15 and 20 degrees C. During scotophase, significantly more overwintered and summer plum curculios were caught at 20 and 25 degrees C than at 15 degrees C. Our experiments demonstrated that geotextile is a good alternative to wooden pyramidal trap. Our results suggest that captures were higher 1) at night, 2) during warmer periods (20 and 25 degrees C), 3) when wind velocity was low and 4) during or shortly after rainfall, and 5) that photoperiod is a factor having an important predictive value for plum curculio captures.
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".