Data from: Biosurveillance for an invasive pest of maize, <i>Prostephanus truncatus</i>, across North America and in Greece
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim of DatasetIn this work, we performed a two-year latitudinal biosurveillance program for <i>Prostephanus truncatus </i>(Horn) (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae), related bostrichids, and <i>Sitophilus</i> spp. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in and around grain production and some natural areas to evaluate how landscape elements, latitude, and season affected their spatiotemporal dynamics.Sampling locations & trapsThe biosurveillance program was conducted by use of a trapping network in central North America in 2021 and 2022 and also in Greece in 2022. Trapping locations were selected along a latitudinal series across major grain-producing states in central North America from 19.6 to 46.8° N, including Estado de México in México, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, and North Dakota (Figure 1; Supplementary Table 1). The number of sites was expanded in 2022 compared to 2021 to provide a more comprehensive picture. At each location, we set up three-trap transects in each of two to three habitats: (1) near row crops (e.g., wheat, maize or soybean), (2) near a food storage facility (e.g. bins, elevator, or processor), and (3) in a natural habitat with no grain source nearby. Pitfall traps (Storgard Dome™ traps, Trécé, Inc., Adair, OK, USA) and 4-funnel Lindgren traps (Bioquip, Rancho Dominguez, CA, USA) spaced 5–10 m apart with a vented collection cup (9.5 × 15.2 cm D:H) at the base were used. The Lindgren traps included a 9 cm (D) piece of 0.4% w/w deltamethrin-incorporated netting or a 1-inch piece of No-Pest Strip (Hot Shot, Reynold’s Consumer Products, Lake Forest, IL) as the kill mechanism, as these have successfully been used in traps in the past (Wilkins et al. 2021). There were either three or four Lindgren or four pitfall traps in a given transect. The Lindgren traps were baited with a commercial formulation of male-produced <i>P. truncatus</i> aggregation pheromone (IL-953, Insects Limited, Westfield, IN, USA), <i>Sitophilus</i> spp. aggregation pheromone separately (IL-703, Insects Limited), multi-species pheromone lures for the cigarette beetle, <i>Lasioderma serricorne</i> (F.) (Coleoptera: Anobiidae), the Indian meal moth, <i>Plodia interpunctella</i> (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), and <i>Trogoderma</i> spp. (Coleoptera: Dermestidae) (IL-708, Insects Limited), and a <i>R. dominica</i> pheromone septa (Item#3158, Trece, Inc., Adair, OK, USA). A batch of lures was purchased in May 2021, and another batch was purchased in April 2022. The pitfall trap only contained the <i>Sitophilus</i> spp. and/or <i>P. truncatus</i> lure. We also added a small amount of maize or wheat to keep insects in the pitfall trap based on synergized response with food cues + pheromones for <i>Sitophilus</i> spp. (Trematerra and Girgenti 1989). The traps were deployed for 7-d periods either on a weekly or monthly basis depending on location from 14 June to as late as 7 Dec 2021 and 4 May to 6 Dec 2022. In Greece, the same protocol as above was utilized in a compressed timeframe consisting of 4 weeks during the key maize harvest in September 2022 at 4 sites between Volos and Thessaloniki (Central and Northern Greece).Insect identification and specimen depositionInsects were identified to species or genus where possible for all specimens using the USDA and Canadian taxonomic keys for stored product insects (Bousquet 1990; USDA 1991). Each trap capture was noted separately along with identifying information, and the abundance of <i>P. truncatus</i>, <i>P. punctatus</i>, other Bostrichidae, and <i>Sitophilus</i> spp. (including <i>S. zeamais</i> and <i>S. oryzae</i>) were recorded. Insects were identified using a dissecting microscope (SMZ18, Nikon Inc., Tokyo, Japan) at 30 x magnification. All specimens for project were deposited at the Kansas State University Museum of Entomological and Prairie Arthropod Research in the Department of Entomology.<br>
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".