Potential of the fumigant ethanedinitrile to kill the pinewood nematode ( <i>Bursaphelenchus xylophilus</i> ) and other forest pathogens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A screening test was carried out using ethanedinitrile (EDN) as a candidate fumigant to replace methyl bromide for efficacy against a selection of forest pests, including the pinewood nematodes ( Bursaphelenchus xylophilus ) and four tree pathogens: Heterobasidion annosum , Geosmithia morbida , Phytophthora ramorum and Ceratocystis fagacearum . Two EDN concentrations were tested: 50 and 100 g/m 3 at two different temperatures and six exposure times. In our tests, EDN was very efficient in killing pathogens in all test parameter combinations, including short exposure times and lower concentration, apart from C . fagacearum surviving short 1 h exposure and G . morbida surviving after 1 and 3 h of exposure. Pinewood nematodes in the small wood blocks were effectively killed at all test parameter combinations. In log sections where deeper nematode infestations were present, nematode survivors at 50 and 100 g/m 3 after 1, 3, and 6 h exposure were observed. This suggests that the fumigant was not efficacious at lower exposure times, while penetrating log sections. Both 50 and 100 g/m 3 dosages were effective after 24 h exposure, indicating that longer retention times are required to effectively kill pine wood nematodes in deeper wood sections. The lower temperature did not affect the efficacy of EDN. This indicates that EDN could successfully eradicate pinewood nematodes in logs over 24 h of exposure, or even less exposure time, at targeted concentrations.
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".