Predicting crop damage caused by wireworms and the effect of tillage on trap efficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A novel wireworm ‘probe’ trap is described, characterized, and used in field trials to (i) determine effects of different spring tillage treatments on its efficiency capturing Agriotes obscurus L. Coleoptera: Elateridae wireworms; and (ii) assess its ability to predict crop damage. In pot trials, its attractiveness to other wireworm species was determined. In a forage/grass field, spring tillage treatments included: ploughing, rototilling, glyphosate-sprayed then ploughing, glyphosate-sprayed then rototilling, glyphosate-sprayed untilled, and untilled. The number of wireworms captured in tilled treatments increased until 20 October. The number of wireworms captured in untilled treatments remained low. Subterranean CO 2 levels in tilled treatments decreased after tillage and over the trapping period, suggesting the increase in captured wireworms occurred because trap CO 2 levels were not overwhelmed by soil levels. The decrease in subterranean CO 2 was less pronounced in untilled-glyphosate and relatively unchanged in untilled-no glyphosate, corresponding to the lower number of wireworms captured. In a separate trial determining the trap’s ability to predict crop damage, a 2 m-wide section was rototilled in grass/forage fields in the spring of Year 1. Probe traps assessed wireworm levels in August and October of Year 1 to predict crop damage for potato and corn planted in Year 2. The y -intercept of linear equations suggested that wireworms captured in October better-predicted potato damage and corn emergence although equations were significant only for August. October-captured wireworms ≤ 21 mm in length correlated better with crop damage than larger wireworms. Pot studies revealed the probe trap to also attract A. litigiousus , A. sordidus , A. brevis , and A. ustulatus .
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".