MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Synergistic Blends of Monoterpenes for Aggregation Pheromones of the Mountain Pine Beetle (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)

2008· article· en· W2186910614 on OpenAlexaff
John H. Borden, Deepa S. Pureswaran, Jean Pierre Lafontaine

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Economic Entomology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsContech (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMyrceneDendroctonusCurculionidaeBiologyMountain pine beetleBotanyPinus contortaSex pheromoneMonoterpenePheromoneKairomoneBark beetleHorticultureHost (biology)EcologyLimonene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The superiority of the host monoterpene myrcene as a synergist for trans-verbenol and exo-brevicomin, aggregation pheromone components of the mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), suggests that the ancestral host of the mountain pine beetle is a pine rich in myrcene. A field trapping experiment in British Columbia testing reconstituted bole oleoresin of whitebark pine, Pinus albicaulis Engelmann, composed of mainly myrcene (20.7%), terpinolene (6.8%), and 3-carene (61.9%) showed it to be a better pheromone synergist than reconstituted bole oleoresin of lodgepole pine, Pinus contorta variety latifolia Engelmann, which contained only 2.7, 1.0, and 6.0%, respectively, of the above-mentioned three compounds. In the same experiment myrcene alone was the best synergist. In subsequent experiments, testing myrcene, terpinolene and 3-carene alone and in all possible binary and ternary combinations, a 50:50 blend of myrcene and terpinolene released at the same rate as either compound alone generally resulted in trap catches approximately 3 times higher than with myrcene as a synergist. This result held as long as the terpinolene was free of contaminants, and the traps were in the open, well away from potential interference of semiochemicals emitted by newly attacked trees. 3-Carene seemed to be inert or slightly inhibitory. No single monoterpene tested alone or in binary or ternary combination in the absence of pheromones was attractive. There was no effect of doubling or tripling the release rate of myrcene or terpinolene. In five of nine experiments, adding terpinolene to myrcene caused a significant increase in the percentage of female mountain pine beetles captured. Among host pines, the presence of highly synergistic monoterpenes at various levels in combination with other monoterpenes that are apparently either inert or inhibitory could account for different degrees of pheromone synergism, and thus host preference. The highly synergistic effect of combining myrcene plus terpinolene with the mountain pine beetle aggregation pheromone components opens up the potential for suppression of populations through semiochemical-based mass trapping.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.199
Threshold uncertainty score0.592

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations73
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Economic EntomologySame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207