Using blends of cerambycid beetle pheromones and host plant volatiles to simultaneously attract a diversity of cerambycid species
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated the attraction of native species of cerambycid beetles to blends of cerambycid pheromones and the host plant volatiles ethanol and α-pinene to determine whether such blends could be effective lures for detecting and monitoring multiple species. The complete six-component blend of pheromones included racemic 3-hydroxy-2-hexanone, 2,3-hexanediol isomers, (E)-6,10-dimethyl-5,9-undecadien-2-ol and the corresponding acetate, 2-(undecyloxy)-ethanol, and racemic 2-methyl-1-butanol. Bioassays in east-central Illinois captured 3070 cerambycid beetles of 10 species, including four species in the subfamily Cerambycinae ( Neoclytus acuminatus (Fabricius, 1775), Neoclytus mucronatus (Fabricius, 1775), Phymatodes lengi Joutel, 1911, and Xylotrechus colonus (Fabricius, 1775)) and six species in the subfamily Laminiae ( Aegomorphus modestus (Gyllenhal in Schoenherr, 1817), Astyleiopus variegatus (Haldeman, 1847), Astylidius parvus (LeConte, 1873), Graphisurus fasciatus (DeGeer, 1775), Lepturges angulatus (LeConte, 1852), and Monochamus carolinensis (Olivier, 1792)). Beetles were attracted to their pheromone components within the blend, with inhibition only evident in one species. Host plant volatiles synergized attraction for some species, and synergism usually was attributed to ethanol, with α-pinene enhancing attraction only for the pine specialist M. carolinensis. The optimal strategy for targeting a broad range of cerambycid species would be to bait traps with a blend of several pheromones plus ethanol and α-pinene because synergism by these plant volatiles is critical for some species, whereas strong inhibition is uncommon.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it