MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949997854 · doi:10.1093/forestry/cpz036

Emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), detection and monitoring in Canada

2019· article· en· W2949997854 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Peter J. Silk, Krista Ryall, Lucas E. Roscoe

Bibliographic record

VenueForestry An International Journal of Forest Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
FundersCanadian Forest ServiceAtlantic Canada Opportunities Agency
KeywordsBuprestidaeAgrilusEmerald ash borerBiologyFraxinusGeographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emerald ash borer (EAB), Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire, is an invasive pest causing extreme levels of mortality in ash (Fraxinus spp., Oleaceae) in the USA and Canada. Knowledge of buprestid chemical ecology is sparse, but the appearance of EAB in North America and its devastating ecological and economic impacts have afforded an opportunity to study its semiochemistry and biology in detail. We review the chemical ecology of EAB and the application of its sex pheromone, the female-produced (3Z)-dodecen-12-olide ((3Z)-lactone), and the green leaf volatile, (3Z)-hexenol, in operational surveys and experimental control strategies. Adding (3Z)-lactone to green sticky prism traps with (3Z)-hexenol on the south aspect of the tree canopy consistently increases trap captures and detection rates at low insect densities. This bait combination is more attractive than (3Z)-hexenol alone, especially when traps are in a competitive deployment. Using a ‘push–pull’ strategy, some nonhost volatiles deployed in ash trees significantly lower trap capture and may be useful in the push component, with a girdled tree treated with systemic insecticide constituting the pull component. We review reliable branch sampling techniques to estimate incidence and density of EAB which positively correlate with trap capture. We recommend using these combined tools to detect, delimit, and monitor EAB.

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)0.001
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 score0.224
Threshold uncertainty score0.618

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestry An International Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207