Semiochemical Diversity in Practice: Antiattractant Semiochemicals Reduce Bark Beetle Attacks on Standing Trees—A First Meta-Analysis

Table 1

Input data for meta-analysis with basic effect size and standard error estimates and weights for individual studies.

Expt nr	Author	Year Publ	Year Expt	Location^1	Beetle species	Treatment^2	Measure	Dicho-tomous	n Ctrl	Effect size (Cohen's d)	Standard error of d	Inverse SE	Z score of d	Standardised residual of d	Weighted d (by Inv. SE)	% Reduction
1	Borden	2006	03	BC	D. ponderosae	Vn 100 u/ha	% mass att.		10	−3.30	0.73	1.38	−2.80	−3.17	−4.54	85%
2	Borden	2006	03	BC	D. ponderosae	Vn + NHV 100 u/ha	% mass att.		10	−2.90	0.68	1.48	−2.30	−2.80	−4.28	83%
3	Jakuš	2011	08	SK	I. typographus	Vn + NHV	Freq tree kill		5	−1.81	0.85	1.17	−0.99	−0.96	−2.13	73%
4	Borden	2006	03	BC	D. ponderosae	NHV 100 u/ha	% mass att.		10	−1.79	0.56	1.79	−0.96	−1.41	−3.20	59%
5	Progar	2005	02	ID	D. ponderosae	Vn	% kill/Suit.		7	−1.68	0.68	1.48	−0.83	−1.01	−2.49	71%
6	Borden	2007	05	BC	D. ponderosae	Vn + tree rem.	Sum trees	Yes	4	−1.59	0.11	9.33	−0.72	−5.50	−14.82	85%
7	Progar	2005	00	ID	D. ponderosae	Vn	% kill/Suit.		7	−1.54	0.66	1.51	−0.66	−0.82	−2.33	83%
8	Jakus	2003	00	PL	I. typographus	Šumava01	Sum trees	Yes		−1.45	0.81	1.23	−0.55	−0.55	−1.78	92%
9	Bentz	2005	01–03	ID, MT	D. ponderosae	Vn “High”	Att. trees/plo		38	−1.35	0.26	3.88	−0.43	−1.36	−5.24	78%
10	Progar	2005	01	ID	D. ponderosae	Vn	% kill/Suit.		7	−1.35	0.64	1.55	−0.42	−0.54	−2.09	68%
11	Gillette	2009	05	CA	D. ponderosae	Vn arial appl.	Att. trees/ha		5	−1.27	0.76	1.27	−0.33	−0.34	−1.61	69%
12	Jakus	2003	01	CZ	I. typographus	Šumava03	Sum trees	Yes		−1.16	0.28	3.63	−0.19	−0.58	−4.20	84%
13	Jakus	2003	00	CZ	I. typographus	Šumava02	Sum trees	Yes		−1.02	0.60	1.66	−0.02	−0.03	−1.69	83%
14	Borden	2003	01	BC	D. ponderosae	High Vn	Att. trees/plot		10	−0.94	0.50	2.01	0.07	0.12	−1.89	57%
15	Gillette	2009	05	ID	D. ponderosae	Vn arial appl.	Att. trees/ha		5	−0.94	0.76	1.32	0.07	0.08	−1.24	65%
16	Borden	2006	03	BC	D. ponderosae	Vn + NHV 400 u/ha	Freq tree kill		10	−0.93	0.50	2.01	0.09	0.15	−1.86	59%
17	Schiebe	2011	06	SK	I. typographus	Vn + NHV × 4	Prop tree kill		9	−0.88	0.67	1.50	0.14	0.18	−1.32	56%
18	Borden	2006	03	BC	D. ponderosae	Vn + NHV 100 u/ha	Freq tree kill		10	−0.87	0.49	2.02	0.15	0.25	−1.77	51%
19	Borden	2006	03	BC	D. ponderosae	Vn + NHV 178 u/ha	Freq tree kill		10	−0.85	0.49	2.03	0.18	0.30	−1.73	55%
20	Schiebe	2011	07	SK	I. typographus	Vn + NHV × 2	Prop tree kill		9	−0.82	0.66	1.51	0.22	0.28	−1.23	49%
21	Schiebe	2011	07	SK	I. typographus	Vn + NHV × 4	Prop tree kill		9	−0.76	0.66	1.51	0.29	0.36	−1.15	63%
22	Borden	2007	05	BC	D. ponderosae	Vn	Sum trees	Yes	3	−0.66	0.13	7.52	0.41	2.54	−4.96	55%
23	Jakuš	2003	00	CZ	I. typographus	Šumava01	Sum trees	Yes		−0.65	0.17	5.94	0.42	2.07	−3.86	52%
24	Schiebe	2011	06	SK	I. typographus	Vn + NHV × 1	Prop tree kill		9	−0.63	0.65	1.53	0.45	0.56	−0.97	34%
25	Borden	2003	01	BC	D. ponderosae	High Vn + NHV	Att. trees/plot		10	−0.44	0.48	2.09	0.68	1.16	−0.92	23%
26	Borden	2003	01	BC	D. ponderosae	Low Vn	Att. trees/plot		10	−0.40	0.48	2.09	0.72	1.25	−0.84	23%
27	Borden	2006	03	BC	D. ponderosae	Vn + NHV 114 u/ha	Freq mass att.		10	−0.39	0.48	2.10	0.74	1.27	−0.82	38%
28	Schiebe	2011	06	SK	I. typographus	Vn + NHV × 2	Prop tree kill		9	−0.32	0.64	1.56	0.82	1.05	−0.50	40%
29	Schiebe	2011	07	SK	I. typographus	Vn + NHV × 1	Prop tree kill		9	−0.27	0.64	1.56	0.88	1.13	−0.43	47%
30	Borden	2003	01	BC	D. ponderosae	Low Vn + NHV	Att. trees/plot		10	−0.27	0.47	2.11	0.89	1.53	−0.57	18%
31	Progar	2005	04	ID	D. ponderosae	Vn	% kill/Suit.		7	0.02	0.58	1.72	1.23	1.74	0.03	−2%
32	Progar	2005	03	ID	D. ponderosae	Vn	% kill/Suit.		7	1.26	0.64	1.57	2.74	3.55	1.97	−396%

¹BC: British Columbia, Canada, SK: Slovak Republic, ID: Idaho, USA, MT: Montana, USA, CA: California, USA, CZ: Czech Republic.
²Vn: verbenone, NHV: nonhost volatiles (combination of green leaf volatiles and bark compounds), Šumava01–Šumava03: dispensers with Vn + NHV.