Efficiency of Flight Interception Traps for Adult Colorado Potato Beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interception traps have been used to monitor and sample Colorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Say), populations in flight, but the efficiency of these traps was unknown. The efficiency of interception window traps is limited because flying adults avoid the traps and may bounce off the trap without being collected. All trap types tested were avoided in flight chamber tests, including those constructed of transparent Plexiglas or yellow wood boards. A larger screen trap and a harp trap designed to reduce detection were also avoided by the beetles in flight. None of the traps provide a direct estimate of the number of adults randomly flying in the trap area. The highest level of efficiency for window traps was obtained with the yellow trap, which caught 16% of the expected flying population. Harp and screen traps without frames intercepted 60-62% of the expected flying population. The presence of a frame did not increase significantly the avoidance of the screen and harp traps by beetles in flight. Recommendations are made to maintain or increase the efficiency of some traps.
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) | 0.003 | 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".