Optimizing early detection strategies: defining the effective attraction radius of attractants for emerald ash borer <scp> <i>Agrilus planipennis</i> </scp> Fairmaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Adult emerald ash borers are attracted to green prism traps baited with the ash host volatile (3 Z )‐hexenol and the sex pheromone of emerald ash borer (3 Z )‐dodecen‐12‐olide [(3 Z )‐lactone]. Quantifying the heretofore unknown range of attraction of such traps would help optimize deployment strategies for early detection. Examining trap captures of traps deployed in pairs at variable distances offers insight into the range of attraction. Recent work has shown the range of attraction can be estimated as half the intertrap distance at which trap catch begins to decrease, which should occur when proximate traps overlap their respective attractive ranges. We estimated these traps' attractive range for emerald ash borer using 98 baited dark green prism traps deployed in pairs, one trap per tree, in an urban park in Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA in summer 2020. We estimate attractive range by fitting a logistic model to trap catch data using Bayesian inferential methods and describe advantages thereof. The attractive range of these baited traps was estimated to be between 16 and 73 m, with a median of 28 m. We recommend that dark green prism traps baited with these semiochemicals be placed 25–35 m apart near high‐risk entry points.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".