Development of practical pheromone lures for <i>Lygus hesperus</i> and <i>Lygus elisus</i> (Heteroptera: Miridae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mirid bugs Lygus hesperus (Knight) and L. elisus (van Duzee) are key pests of forage, fiber, and fruit crops. Our goals were to identify pheromone components produced by females of both species and to develop practical pheromone dispensers for use in monitoring these pests. Volatiles collected from virgin female L. elisus contained (E)-2-hexenyl butyrate (E2HB) as the major component with lesser amounts of hexyl butyrate (HB) and (E)-4-oxo-2-hexenal (E4OH) (ratio 117.2:100:17.1, respectively), whereas volatiles and solvent extracts from L. hesperus contained HB and E4OH as major components, with only small amounts of E2HB (100:23.6:3.4, respectively in volatiles). Dispensers fabricated from pipette tips released the components at ~10 µg/d in a ratio similar to the loading ratio. These lures were used to optimize the pheromone blends in field studies from 2012 to 2017. Blends of E2HB and E4OH attracted L. elisus, and a 100:60 blend was optimal. Blends of HB and E4OH attracted L. hesperus, and a 100:60 blend was adopted as a base blend. The additions of possible minor components such as (Z)-3-hexenyl butyrate, (E)-2-hexenal, or 1-hexanol did not improve the attraction of L. hesperus. In trials in alfalfa and strawberry, traps baited with blends of HB:E4OH (100:60) were equally or more effective for monitoring L. hesperus than sweep or vacuum samples, with pipette tip dispensers lasting 2-3 weeks under field conditions. The numbers of L. hesperus captured were lower than expected as compared with reports of pheromone trapping for other Lygus spp. Some possible reasons were investigated.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".