MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394768108 · doi:10.3390/insects15040267

Mass Trapping Lepidopteran Pests with Light Traps, with Focus on Tortricid Forest Pests: What If?

2024· article· en· W4394768108 on OpenAlexaff
Marc Rhainds

Bibliographic record

VenueInsects · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyIntegrated pest managementTrappingPEST analysisTrap (plumbing)EcologyAgroforestryEnvironmental scienceHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The management of Lepidopteran pests with light traps (LTs) is often achieved by luring adults to death at light sources (light trap-based mass trapping, or LTmt). Large-scale LTmt programs against agricultural pests initiated in the late 1920s in the United States were phased out in the 1970s, coinciding with the rise of pheromone-based management research. The interest in LTmt has surged in recent years with the advent of light emitting diodes, solar power sources, and intelligent design. The first step in implementing LTmt is to identify a trapping design that maximizes the capture of target pests and minimizes the capture of non-target beneficial insects—with a cautionary note that high captures in LTs are not equivalent to the feasibility of mass trapping: the ultimate objective of LTmt is to protect crop plants from pest damage, not to trap adults. The captures of egg-carrying females in light traps have a greater impact on the efficiency of LTmt than the captures of males. When LTmt is defined as a harvesting procedure, the biomass of females in LTs may be viewed as the best estimator of the mass trapping yield; biomass proxy has universal application in LTmt as every living organism can be defined on a per weight basis. While research has largely focused on agricultural pests, an attempt is made here to conceptualize LTmt as a pest management strategy in forest ecosystems, using spruce budworm as a case study. The mass trapping of female budworms is impossible to achieve in endemic populations due to the large spatial scale of forest landscapes (implying the deployment of a prohibitively large number of LTs); in addition, ovipositing female budworms do not respond to light sources at a low density of conspecifics. The light-based mass trapping of female budworms may provide a realistic management option for geographically isolated forest stands heavily infested with budworms, as a tool to prevent tree mortality. Somehow unexpectedly, however, one factor obscuring the feasibility of LTmt is as follows: the complex (‘unknowable’) economic valuation of forest stands as opposed to agricultural landscapes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.486
Threshold uncertainty score0.882

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.192 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInsectsSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207