MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408979970 · doi:10.1111/een.13440

OlfactionROOM: An optimised, low‐cost olfactometer and easy‐to‐apply setup to mitigate the escape behaviour of insects

2025· article· en· W4408979970 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Brunner, Michael Traugott, Willem G. van Herk, Sergio Angeli, Riccardo Favaro

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Entomology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect behavior and control techniques
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOlfactometerBiologyEcologyHost (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Olfactometers are a widely used tool to investigate the effects of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) on insect behaviour. However, conventional olfactometers are of limited use for highly mobile, walking insects that exhibit a strong escape behaviour, resulting in biased measurements due to insects' agitation at the beginning of the bioassay. To minimise agitation of highly mobile walking insects, we designed the OlfactionROOM‐olfactometer, an improved four‐arm olfactometer, featuring a central chamber where insects are exposed to all test odours before the start of the bioassay. Additionally, a simple and remote deactivation of the chamber reduces the operator's influence on insect behaviour at the onset of the bioassay and allows them to adapt to the experimental environment. To evaluate the OlfactionROOM's effectiveness, we conducted trials using plant‐derived VOCs as lures, and Agriotes sputator click beetles (Coleoptera: Elateridae) as a model species for highly mobile, walking insects. We compared the beetles' mobility rates and average moving speed between the OlfactionROOM and two conventional olfactometers as indicators of agitation. Additionally, we tested the performance of the optimised olfactometer and our easy‐to‐apply setup on the first choice of A. sputator beetles when exposed to its sex pheromone as an attractant and basil oil as a repellent. Beetle average moving speed and mobility rate were significantly reduced by 37.3% and 35.2% respectively in the OlfactionROOM compared to standard olfactometers, indicating reduced levels of insect agitation during data acquisition. The OlfactionROOM‐olfactometer combined with a simple mechanism for remote deactivation of the insect acclimation chamber enabled a distinct measurement of the beetles' first‐choice responses to basil oil and sex pheromone, showing significant differences between the two ( p = 0.35). Furthermore, the improved olfactometer setup enhanced the quality of video recordings due to the remote deactivation of the acclimation chamber, allowing uninterrupted observation of insect behaviour. Our findings demonstrate that the OlfactionROOM and the easy‐to‐apply setup offer a low‐cost tool for improving the characterisation of the ecological role of VOCs in highly mobile insects by mitigating test insects' escape behaviour. Both the blueprints for manufacturing the OlfactionROOM‐olfactometer and the accompanying software are freely available, facilitating easy access and rapid implementation of this novel design.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcological EntomologySame topicInsect behavior and control techniquesFrench-language works237,207