MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033817010 · doi:10.7717/peerj.9244

Repurposing a traditional Japanese method of pest control for wintering pine moths, Komo-trap, for use against summer and winter populations of fall webworms

2020· article· en· W3033817010 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Osamu Mikami, Misaki Takamatsu, Rika Yarita

Bibliographic record

VenuePeerJ · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPEST analysisLepidoptera genitaliaBiologyPest controlHyphantriaRange (aeronautics)EcologyIntegrated pest managementGeographyHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The fall webworm, Hyphantria cunea Drury (Lepidoptera: Erebidae), is a widespread invasive species. It is native to North America, ranging from southern Canada to northern Mexico. During and after the 1940s, this pest was accidentally introduced in many parts of Europe and Asia. It has now spread to more than 30 countries. The larvae feed on leaves of a wide range of tree species, including ones used as street trees in cities, causing an increase in urban management cost. Although several pest management methods have been employed, pest damage continues especially in newly invaded areas. In this study, we examined the effect and cost-effectiveness of the komo-trap, traditionally used in Japan to reduce the population of larvae of the pine moth Dendrolimus spectabilis Butler (Lepidoptera: Lasiocampidae). This trap, which is safe for people and ecosystems, has not yet been applied to trap the fall webworm. Methods In two seasons of 2017, we set komo-traps on street trees in Hakodate City, Japan. We counted the numbers of captured fall webworms compared with controls. We also monitored other species to evaluate any nontarget effects of the trap. Results One komo, the material cost of which is about 1.10 USD, captured 43.8 fall webworms on average in summer and 27.2 in the fall. The values were significantly larger than those of the controls, which were 0.07 in summer and 0.14 in winter. Bycatch of other species was minimal in summer, whereas in the fall one komo, on average, caught 10.7 woodlice Porcellio sp. or spp. (Isopoda: Porcellionidae). Discussion The komo-trap is effective in capturing fall webworm. The cost performance of the trap is very favorable, and the nontarget effects can be reduced by using the trap in summer only. The komo-trap would complement other control methods such as tree pruning. Because its cost is low, we recommend that the komo-trap be introduced as a larger-scale trial.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeerJSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207