Ball sampling, a novel method to detect <i>Adelges tsugae</i> (Hemiptera: Adelgidae) in hemlock (Pinaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Detection of the exotic hemlock woolly adelgid, Adelges tsugae Annand (Hemiptera: Adelgidae), in the crown of eastern hemlock, Tsuga canadensis (Linnaeus) Carrière (Pinaceae), relies mainly on two techniques: (1) sampling of branches from the lower half of the crown using pole pruners; and, (2) visual examinations of accessible foliage from the ground. As a result, infestations starting elsewhere than the lower crown may be missed because the upper crown is out of reach for both techniques. We developed a novel technique called ball sampling, and evaluated its sensitivity at detecting a range of A. tsugae ovisac densities as estimated by pole pruning branch tips of T. canadensis. We launched racquet balls covered with VELCRO® patches of hooks through branches and examined them for the presence of wool produced by A. tsugae. Ball sampling was as effective as pole pruning at detecting infestations in individual trees. If A. tsugae abundance on branches was ⩾0.1 per 10 cm of twig length, as estimated by branch-tip sampling, ball sampling always detected wool in 10 or fewer samples. This technique has the potential to improve detectability of A. tsugae infestations because it can effectively access foliage that is typically inaccessible to other ground-based detection tools.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".