MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288177908 · doi:10.1007/s10886-022-01367-1

Identification of the Major Sex Pheromone Component of the Click Beetle Agriotes ferrugineipennis

2022· article· en· W4288177908 on OpenAlexafffund
Kendal Singleton, Regine Gries, Willem G. van Herk, Santosh Kumar Alamsetti, Emily Lemke, Kathleen Furtado, Gerhard Gries

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical Ecology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect and Pesticide Research
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSex pheromonePheromoneBiologyNonanalElectroantennographyFemale sexZoologyBotanyFood scienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Synthetic sex pheromone lures are useful tools to monitor and control populations of adult click beetles (Coleoptera: Elateridae). However, sex pheromones for Agriotes click beetle species native to North America have yet to be identified. Here we report the identification and field testing of the sex pheromone of Agriotes ferrugineipennis. Headspace volatiles from female beetles were collected on Porapak Q, and aliquots of Porapak extract were analyzed by gas chromatographic-electroantennographic detection (GC-EAD) and GC-mass spectrometry. 7-Methyloctyl 7-methyloctanoate (7Me7Me) emitted by females was more abundant and elicited much stronger responses from male antennae than the aldehydes octanal and nonanal and the ketone 6,10,14-trimethyl-2-pentadecanone. In a field experiment, captures of A. ferrugineipennis males in traps baited with candidate pheromone components exceeded those of unbaited control traps, on average by nearly 1,200 times. Neither the ketone nor the aldehydes as lure constituents appeared to alter captures of males in 7Me7Me-baited traps. We conclude that 7Me7Me is the major, and possibly the only, sex attractant pheromone component of female A. ferrugineipennis.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.194
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chemical EcologySame topicInsect and Pesticide ResearchFrench-language works237,207