Plant module size influences the intra‐tree distribution and abundance of a shoot‐boring sawfly in young balsam fir
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Field surveys were carried out to assess the effects of intra‐tree variation in developing shoot length within and among crown levels on the density and abundance of the balsam shoot‐boring sawfly, Pleroneura brunneicornis Rohwer (Hymenoptera: Xyelidae), in young balsam fir, Abies balsamea (L.) Mill. (Pinaceae). Overall, cardinal direction had no influence on shoot‐borer density or abundance; however, the highest percentage and abundance of bored shoots occurred on intermediate‐sized shoots within the crown (i.e., in the mid‐crown and on the distal‐lateral and medial‐lateral shoots). Comparatively, few shoot borers occurred in the upper or lower crown levels, or on the relatively large terminal shoots within branches. This distribution appears indicative of the higher suitability of intermediate‐sized shoots within hosts for either egg lay or larval performance. Results of this study are most consistent with predictions of the ‘optimal module size’ hypothesis, which posits that herbivore responses to plant module size should reflect the balance of tradeoffs between utilizing relatively large, nutritious shoots vs. small, more easily exploited shoots.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".