MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7125383455 · doi:10.1093/jee/toaf366

<i>Dendroctonus rufipennis</i> (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) responses to 4 doses of 3-methylcyclohex-2-en-1-one (MCH) in baited trapping assays

2025· article· en· W7125383455 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jackson P. Audley, Christopher J. Fettig, Jason Moan, Jessie Moan, Leif A. Mortenson, Agenor Mafra‐Neto

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Economic Entomology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Forest ServiceNational Institute of Food and AgricultureSmall Business Innovation ResearchU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsSemiochemicalTrappingPEST analysisPheromonePesticide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spruce beetle, Dendroctonus rufipennis (Kirby) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), is the most significant pest of spruce, Picea spp. (Pinales: Pinaceae), in western North America. Several doses of 3-methylcyclohex-2-en-1-one (MCH), the primary antiaggregation pheromone of D. rufipennis, alone and combined with non-host volatiles have been demonstrated effective for Picea protection. Herein, we evaluate the effects of MCH dose on D. rufipennis captures in baited trapping assays in Alaska and Colorado, United States. Twenty-five, 12-unit, multiple-funnel traps were baited with a D. rufipennis lure (frontalin + MCOL + spruce terpenes; Synergy Semiochemical Corp., Delta, British Columbia, Canada) and randomly assigned to one of 5 treatments in each assay: SBL (baited control); SBL + 1 g MCH; SBL + 3.5 g MCH; SBL + 7 g MCH; and SBL + 10 g MCH. SPLAT MCH (experimental formulation ISR: MCH-001R1, ISCA Inc., Riverside, California, United States), a flowable matrix containing 10.0% MCH by weight, was used in both assays with dose manipulated by the number and size of SPLAT MCH dollops (release points) attached to traps. In both Alaska and Colorado, all MCH doses (1, 3.5, 7, and 10 g) significantly reduced D. rufipennis captures compared to SBL. No significant differences were observed among MCH doses. Males and females responded similarly to MCH doses. The implications of these and other results to management of D. rufipennis are discussed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Economic EntomologySame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207