Comparisons of mountain pine beetle ( <i>Dendroctonus ponderosae</i> Hopkins) reproduction within a novel and traditional host: effects of insect natal history, colonized host species and competitors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract During host‐breadth expansion, phytophagous insects incur risk from potentially deleterious novel host environments at the same time as potentially securing a potential escape in space or time from competing species. Bark beetles reproduce under the bark of stems and branches of mature, stressed or moribund trees, and may suffer high mortality from plant defences and inter‐ and intraspecific competition. An epidemic of mountain pine beetle ( Dendroctonus ponderosae H opkins) in western C anada has extended to over 18.1 million hectares of lodgepole pine ( Pinus contorta D ouglas ex. L oudon) forests. In some areas, mountain pine beetles have been found to reproduce within interior hybrid spruces [ Picea glauca ( M oench) Voss × engelmannii P arry ex. E ngelmann], a normally rare occurrence. Using mountain pine beetles reared from naturally‐infested interior hybrid spruce and lodgepole pine hosts, we examined the effect of female natal species and colonized host species on the ability to attract mates and reproduce within spruce and pine logs deployed as a choice assay in a field setting. Additionally, we examined whether the arrival and reproduction of competitors such as pine engravers ( Ips spp.) was associated with reduced brood production. Females reared from pine and spruce exhibited similar reproductive potentials. Recruitment and establishment of ovipositional galleries, larval galleries and pupal chambers were similar in the typical and novel hosts. Reproduction by mountain pine beetles in spruce, although successful, was significantly lower than in pine. This reduction occurred despite spruce logs being almost entirely free of competing secondary beetles.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".