Navigating the Semiochemical Landscape: Attraction of Subcortical Beetle Communities to Bark Beetle Pheromones, Fungal and Host Tree Volatiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subcortical beetle communities interact with a wide range of semiochemicals released from different sources, including trees, fungi, and bark beetle pheromones. While the attraction of bark beetles, their insect predators, and competitors to bark beetle pheromones is commonly studied, the attraction of these beetle communities to other sources of semiochemicals remains poorly understood. We tested the attraction of bark and wood-boring beetles and their predators to host stress volatiles, fungal volatiles, and a mountain pine beetle lure in the field. Host stress volatiles were derived from lodgepole pine trees stressed by three fungal symbionts of mountain pine beetle and two common phytopathogens. Our results showed that bark beetles, particularly mountain pine beetles, show a preference for a combination of fungal volatiles, particularly 2-methyl-1-butanol and its lures. Without the addition of lures, 2-methyl-1-butanol was also identified as a key fungal volatile in the attraction of mountain pine beetle competitors from the Cerambycidae and Buprestidae families. Predators in the Elateridae and Staphylinidae families showed attraction to host stress volatiles and the healthy tree volatile profiles. These findings suggest that these semiochemicals warrant further field testing for potential use in monitoring and management of subcortical beetle populations.
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) | 0.000 | 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".