Response of native and exotic longhorn beetles to common pheromone components provides partial support for the pheromone‐free space hypothesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Longhorn beetles are among the most important groups of invasive forest insects worldwide. In parallel, they represent one of the most well-studied insect groups in terms of chemical ecology. Longhorn beetle aggregation-sex pheromones are commonly used as trap lures for specific and generic surveillance programs at points of entry and may play a key role in determining the success or failure of exotic species establishment. An exotic species might be more likely to establish in a novel habitat if it relies on a pheromone channel that is different to that of native species active at the same time of year and day, allowing for unhindered mate location (i.e., pheromone-free space hypothesis). In this study, we first tested the attractiveness of single pheromone components (i.e., racemic 3-hydroxyhexan-2-one, racemic 3-hydroxyoctan-2-one, and syn-2,3-hexanediol), and their binary and tertiary combinations, to native and exotic longhorn beetle species in Canada and Italy. Second, we exploited trap catches to determine their seasonal flight activity. Third, we used pheromone-baited "timer traps" to determine longhorn beetle daily flight activity. The response to single pheromones and their combinations was mostly species specific but the combination of more than one pheromone component allowed catch of multiple species simultaneously in Italy. The response of the exotic species to pheromone components, coupled with results on seasonal and daily flight activity, provided partial support for the pheromone-free space hypothesis. This study aids in the understanding of longhorn beetle chemical ecology and confirms that pheromones can play a key role in longhorn beetle invasions.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".