Asymmetric semiochemical-mediated interactions of <i>Monochamus</i> spp. (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) and associated bark beetles in Portugal and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some coniferophagous bark and woodboring beetles overlap spatially and temporally in host trees. These larval interactions have been classified as competitive and predatory in favor of the larger and more mobile woodborer larvae. In some bark beetles, larval traits have been reported that facilitate evasion of woodborer larvae. Both bark beetles and woodborers mediate mating on host material with volatile pheromones. Although it is known that some woodborers eavesdrop on bark beetle aggregation pheromones to facilitate host location, it is not known what effect woodborer pheromones have on bark beetles. The pheromone monochamol is used by most Monochamus spp. Dejean and coniferophagous species from this genus co-occur with bark beetles in host tissues. Because of the negative consequences these larval interactions have for bark beetles, we hypothesized that the woodborer pheromone monochamol would inhibit captures of sympatric and synchronic bark beetles to intercept traps baited with their aggregation pheromones and host volatiles. We tested this hypothesis in 2 systems, 1 in Ontario, Canada, and another in Setúbal, Portugal with field trapping experiments. Trap captures of Ips sexdentatus (Boerner) (Coleoptera: Scolytinae), Orthotomicus erosus (Wollaston) (Coleoptera: Scolytinae) (2 bark beetle species captured in Portugal), and Ips pini (Say) (Coleoptera: Scolytinae) (1 bark beetle species captured in Canada) were reduced by the presence of monochamol. These results suggest that an additional evasion mechanism in some bark beetles is the detection of the woodborer pheromone monochamol and subsequent reduced response to aggregation pheromone and host volatiles in the presence of this woodborer pheromone.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".