Behaviors of Adult <i>Agrilus Planipennis</i> (Coleoptera: Buprestidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 2-year study was conducted in Canada (2003) and the United States (2005) to better understand searching and mating behaviors of adult Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire. In both field and laboratory, adults spent more time resting and walking than feeding or flying. The sex ratio in the field was biased towards males, which tended to hover around trees, likely looking for mates. There was more leaf feeding damage within a tree higher in the canopy than in the lower canopy early in the season, but this difference disappeared over time. In choice experiments, males attempted to mate with individuals of both sexes, but they landed more frequently on females than on males. A series of sexual behaviors was observed in the laboratory, including: exposure of the ovipositor/genitalia, sporadic jumping by males, attempted mating, and mating. Sexual behaviors were absent among 1-3 day-old beetles, but were observed regularly in 10-12 day-old beetles. Females were seen exposing their ovipositor, suggestive of pheromone-calling behavior. No courtship was observed prior to mating. Hovering, searching, and landing behaviors suggest that beetles most likely rely on visual cues during mate finding, although host-plant volatiles and/or pheromones might also be involved.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".