Detection and landing behavior of emerald ash borer, <i>Agrilus planipennis</i>, at low population density
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The exotic emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire (Coleoptera: Buprestidae), was first discovered in North America in southeastern Michigan, USA, and Windsor, Ontario, Canada in 2002. Significant ash (Fraxinus spp.) mortality has been caused in areas where this insect has become well established, and new infestations continue to be discovered in several states in the United States and in Canada. This beetle is difficult to detect when it invades new areas or occurs at low density. Girdled trap tree and ground surveys have been important tools for detecting emerald ash borer populations, and more recently, purple baited prism traps have been used in detection efforts.\nGirdled trap trees were found to be more effective than purple prism traps at detecting emerald ash borer as they acted as sinks for larvae in an area of known low density emerald ash borer infestation. The canopy condition of the trap trees was not predictive of whether they were infested or not, indicating that ground surveys may not be effective for detection in an area of low density emerald ash borer population.\nWhen landing rates of low density emerald ash borer populations were monitored on non-girdled ash trees, landing rates were higher on larger, open grown trees with canopies that contain a few dead branches.\nAs a result of these studies, we suggest that the threshold for emerald ash borer detection using baited purple prism traps hung at the canopy base of trees is higher than for girdled trap trees. In addition, detection of developing populations of EAB may be possible by selectively placing sticky trapping surfaces on non-girdled trap trees that are the larger and more open grown trees at a site.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it