Relative Attractiveness of Incomplete and Complete Blends of Synthetic Pheromone to Male Obliquebanded Leafroller (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Moths in a Flight Tunnel and in Apple Orchards: Implications for Sex Pheromone–Mediated Mating Disruption of This Species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relative attractiveness of synthetic Choristoneura rosaceana (Harris) pheromone consisting of the major compound Z-11-tetradecenyl acetate (Z11-14:OAc), or the major compound plus one, two, or all three of the minor compounds E-11-tetradecenyl acetate (E11-14:OAc), Z-11-tetradecenol (Z11-14:OH), and Z-11-tetradecenal (Z11-14:Ald), in amounts similar to those in the natural pheromone, was compared in a flight tunnel and in apple orchards. In the flight tunnel, there was an increase in the proportion of moths that were activated when E11-14:OAc was combined with the main compound, but no detectible additional increases in response with the addition of Z11-14:OH and Z11-14:Ald. The time required for activation was twice as long when using the major compound than when using the major compound and one or more of the minor compounds. There was a trend of increase in the proportion of males initiating the take-off, lock-on, close-in, and touchdown phases of upwind flight when progressively more complete blends were used. The time required for the initiation of these behavioral phases was statistically similar for each treatment. The proportion of moths landing at the pheromone source was 10 times greater when using the complete blend than when using the main compound alone. Similar results were obtained in apple orchards, where the four-compound blend was 17-55 times more attractive than the main compound. The superior attractiveness of the four-compound pheromone compared with the major compound, or to the major compound plus the minor compound E11-14:OAc, suggests that it would be the most effective synthetic pheromone if competitive attraction were an important mechanism of disruption in this species.
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".