Capture of wild and marked Agriotes obscurus in pheromone traps according to distance, wind direction and date of trapping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A study was conducted to determine rates of recapture of marked Agriotes obscurus (AO) males released in a grassy field on four occasions in the centre of pheromone trap squares with traps spaced 2.5, 5.0, 7.5 and 10.0 m apart. Concurrent catches of naturally occurring and naturally dispersed (wild) AO were also recorded. Catch of marked AO was highest during peak emergence when maximum weekly temperatures ranged from 15.7 to 17 °C, and rainfall was light. Mean catch in the 2.5–10.0 m trap squares was, respectively, 82.0, 79.0, 77.0 and 65.0%, which occurred within one week of release. Catch of marked AO were lower (range in 2.5–10.0 m squares: 74.5–50.5%) when released early in the activity period, due to lower temperatures and higher rainfall, and catch was protracted over 3 weeks. Catch during two releases under favourable weather late in the activity period was also reduced (range: 25–58%), likely due to loss of AO vigour and/or pheromone trap efficacy. Catch of wild AO was highest in traps spaced 7.5 or 10.0 m apart, suggesting independence of these traps, and between-trap competition at 2.5 and 5.0 m spacings. From these data, we estimated that an effective spacing for traps in mass trapping arrays would be approximately 6 m. Significantly higher catch of marked or wild AO occurred in traps that were upwind in all trap squares, indicating wind direction should be considered in structuring the placement of trap arrays in mass trapping programs in non-farmed headland areas.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".