Comparative Behavioural Responses of<i>Dryocoetes confusus</i>Swaine,<i>Dendroctonus rufipennis</i>(Kirby), and<i>Dendroctonus ponderosae</i>Hopkins (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) to Angiosperm Tree Bark Volatiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Synthetic, angiosperm bark-derived volatiles, which elicit antennal responses in a number of coniferophagous bark beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae), were tested in groups for their ability to disrupt the pheromone-positive response of the spruce beetle (SB), Dendroctonus rufipennis (Kirby), the western balsam bark beetle (WBBB), Dryocoetes confusus Swaine, and the mountain pine beetle (MPB), Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins, to attractant-baited traps. One complex mixture disrupted WBBB response to pheromone-baited multiple-funnel traps to a level not significantly different than that in unbaited control traps. No group of compounds, including a group of green leaf volatiles, was active in disrupting SB response, a result that contrasts other published findings and that is different from the behavioral responses that are elicited by nonhost volatiles in other species of coniferophagous bark beetles. For the MPB, the two green leaf alcohols, 1-hexanol and (Z)-3-hexen-1-ol, were highly disruptive. In addition, combinations of compounds from the group consisting of salicylaldehyde, benzaldehyde, nonanal, guaiacol, benzyl alcohol, and conophthorin acted to augment the disruptive activity of the green leaf alcohols.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".