An enhanced lure for eastern populations of the North American spruce beetle, <i>Dendroctonus rufipennis</i> Kirby (Coleoptera: Curculionidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regional variation in pheromone production and response has practical implications for the use of semiochemical lures to monitor and control bark beetle populations. We tested 4 lure formulations including 2 new formulations that reflect the pheromone production profiles of western and eastern populations of spruce beetles, Dendroctonus rufipennis Kirby (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), as well as 2 commercially available formulations (current Rocky Mountain lure and current Atlantic lure), in 2 locations in New Brunswick, Canada. In 2 separate years, the new eastern lure containing seudenol, MCOL, and spruce terpenes captured 4 times (2021) and 11 times (2022) more spruce beetles than the current Atlantic lure that consisted of frontalin, seudenol, and spruce terpenes. In 2021, we also captured more eastern larch beetles, Dendroctonus simplex LeConte (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), with the new eastern lure, whereas in 2022, we captured the most D. simplex with the current Atlantic lure, suggesting that more research is needed on D. simplex pheromone production and response across its range. The bark beetle predator, Thanasimus dubius (Fabr.; Coleoptera: Cleridae), did not respond well to the new eastern blend that lacks frontalin, suggesting that response to frontalin is important in finding prey and might be conserved in predator populations. The reduced trap catch of T. dubius to the enhanced lure is beneficial because it does not inhibit natural population control by removing predators from the community. Our study reveals an improved trap lure for eastern populations of spruce beetles and highlights gaps and research needs in bark beetle pheromone ecology.
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".