Disorientation of male Agriotes click beetles in the presence of granulate pheromones - a case for mating disruption
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract 1. Larvae of multiple click beetle species, i.e. wireworms, are important pests of agriculture worldwide, and are generally managed with insecticides. Conceivably, semiochemical-based management tactics that target male beetles and reduce the mating success of females, would reduce the formation of new larvae in the field. 2. Using two of the best studied species, Agriotes obscurus (AO) and A. lineatus (AL), we evaluated the ability of male beetles to find traps that simulate calling female beetles in field plots treated with various formulations and densities of pheromone-treated substrates. Four disorientation studies were conducted, and the response of wild and marked-released beetles inferred from frequent trap collections. 3. Beetle responses differed between male AO, female AO, and male AL. The presence of AO pheromone increased male AO movements, reduced captures in baited traps, and attracted wild AO beetles into the plots. By the final experiment, the pheromone-treated substrate effectively disoriented male AO for > 17 d. However, treatment with AL pheromone reduced male AO movements and/or repelled them from the plots. Female AO were slightly attracted to their own pheromone early in the season, but not thereafter. Treatment with AL pheromone attracted male AL into plots but did not increase their activity. Both AO and AL pheromone disrupted male AL behaviour, but less significantly than observed for male AO. 4. These results suggest pheromone-based click beetle mating disruption for wireworm management is feasible. However, further work is required to determine application rates and methods, and if this can be developed for other species.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".