EFFICACY of DIFFERENT BAITING MATRICES as TOOLS in the MANAGEMENT of CARPENTER ANTS (HYMENOPTERA: FORMICIDAE)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Carpenter ants, Camponotus spp., are major structural pests as well as nuisance pests in northern areas of the United States, southern Canada, and northern Europe. Management tools have included cul-tural controls to modify habitats and foraging, dust applications to wall voids, perimeter sprays, baiting, and combinations of these approaches. Comparisons of liquid, gel, and granular formulations were made at 87 field sites with infestations of C. modoc or C. vicinus. Toxicants in these tests included boric acid, avermectin, hydramethylnon, and fipronil. Foraging sites and trails were utilized during the foraging sea-son for bait placement. Parameters for assessing control included observation of foragers, homeowner observations, and a final inspection the following spring. Efficacy of baits was investigated over five years and found to have 77 % to 90 % control. Liquids with boric acid required an average of 11.1 weeks for control, and hydramethylnon granules required 10 weeks. Both achieved 100 % control. Fipronil granules had a 92 % control in an average of 5.9 weeks, but the avermectin granules did not achieve control. Fipronil gel had a 76 % control in 6.6 weeks. The results were highly variable because of differences in sites and in competition with natural foods. Granular baits were demonstrated to be effective in controlling carpenter ants in a reduced amount of time when the bait was competitive with natural foraging sources. Key Words Camponotus liquid baits gel baits granular baits
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".