Trap trees: an effective method for monitoring mountain pine beetle activities in novel habitats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mountain pine beetle (MPB; Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins) has recently expanded its range into the lodgepole pine forests in Alberta, Canada. However, it is unknown whether semiochemical tools developed in the beetle’s historical range are suitable for monitoring MPB in the new environment. Thus, we conducted a 3-year study to test new MPB monitoring tools in Alberta. A field trial selected a combination of MPB pheromones and two host volatiles. Using this combination, we baited different numbers of trees in triangular, square, or rectangular formations (spatial arrangements of trees) to determine how the densities of baited trees affect MPB attraction. Three plots, each made up of three formations, were arranged in a linear transect at various distances between formation boundaries. The proportion of baited trees mass-attacked was highest in the square formation. However, the proportion of spillover trees mass-attacked (attacks on non-baited trees) was lower when formations were 1 km apart compared with 4 or 8 km apart. In a follow-up test of the square formation alone, there was no difference in trap tree effectiveness between distances of 8 and 12 km. We suggest that four baited trees spaced 50 m apart in a square formation at a 12 km distance can be used in the field.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".