Wood borer detection rates on wood packaging materials entering the United States during different phases of ISPM 15 implementation and regulatory changes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wood packaging material (WPM) used in international trade, such as crating and pallets, is recognized as a high-risk pathway for the introduction of bark- and wood-infesting insects (borers). The International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures No. 15 (ISPM 15), which sets treatment requirements for WPM, was adopted in 2002. The United States (US) implemented ISPM 15 during 2005–2006. We used 2003–2020 AQIM (Agriculture Quarantine Inspection Monitoring, conducted by USDA APHIS) data, based on standard random sampling, to compare pre-ISPM 15 borer detection rates in WPM entering the US (2003–2004) to detection rates during 2005–2006 (implementation phase), 2007–2009 (post-ISPM 15 when bark was not regulated) and 2010–2020 (post-ISPM 15 when bark was regulated). We examined borer detection rates overall for all AQIM WPM records and individually for the three main cargo survey programs within AQIM [Italian tiles, perishables, and general WPM (GWPM) for any WPM associated with containerized maritime imports], and individually for three major US trading partners (China, Italy, and Mexico). During 2003–2020, wood borers were detected in 180 of 87,571 consignments with WPM (0.21%). When compared to 2003–2004 (detection rate of 0.34%), detection rates fell 61% during 2005–2006, 47% during 2007–2009, and 36% during 2010–2020. Similar declines occurred for WPM associated with Italian tiles and perishables. However, for GWPM there was no significant reduction post-ISPM 15. WPM infestation rates were reduced significantly during various post-ISPM 15 periods for Italy and Mexico, but not for China. Seven families or subfamilies of borers were recorded in WPM with Cerambycidae and Scolytinae being most frequent. The incidence of WPM with bark fell significantly after the 2009 change to ISPM 15 that required debarked WPM. We discuss several factors that could influence the apparent effectiveness of ISPM 15.
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".