Impact of Trap Architecture, Adjacent Habitats, Abiotic Factors, and Host Plant Phenology on Captures of Plum Curculio (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pyramid traps, 2.44 m and 3.66 m in height, were compared with standard-sized pyramid traps, 1.22 m in height, to assess the impact of trap architecture on captures of adult plum curculio, Conotrachelus nenuphar (Herbst) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), in two apple (Malus spp.) orchards and a blueberry (Vaccinium spp.) planting. The effects of adjacent habitat (organic orchard versus wooded areas), abiotic factors, and phenological stages of apple also were assessed to determine whether these variables influenced trap captures. Standard-sized pyramidal traps captured significantly more adults than larger trap variants. In the apple orchards, most adults (70-80%) were captured before petal fall with the exception of blocks adjacent to the organic orchard (25%). Significantly more adults were captured along the edge of an apple orchard (managed using an integrated pest management strategy) facing an organic apple orchard (76%) than along the edge facing wooded areas (24%). There was a significant positive correlation between daily trap captures and mean daily temperatures before petal fall in apple orchards.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".