Host resistance screening for balsam woolly adelgid: A comparison of seedlings from 12 fir species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The balsam woolly adelgid, Adelges piceae (Hemiptera: Adelgidae) (BWA), first reported on Fraser fir, Abies fraseri (Pursh) Poiret, on Mount Mitchell in 1955 (Amman 1966, Boyce 1955), is a major pest in Christmas tree plantations and in native stands. Nearly all Fraser fir Christmas trees produced in North Carolina need to be treated one or more times during their 5- to 10-year rotation to prevent or lessen damage caused by this adelgid. These chemical treatments cost the industry over 1.5 million dollars per year (Potter et al. 2005) and may compromise the effectiveness of integrated pest management systems. The development of BWA-resistant Fraser fir trees would be a relatively inexpensive solution to a difficult pest problem and would minimize adverse effects from management strategies. The balsam woolly adelgid, specific to the genus Abies, reproduces through parthenogenesis and completes two or more generations per year (Arthur and Hain 1984, Balch 1952). The early phase of the first instar (crawler) is the only motile stage. Feeding sites are chosen for accessibility to parenchyma cells (Balch 1952) and, once settled, the adelgid remains fairly sessile for the remainder of its life. Susceptibility to BWA varies among Abies species. Host responses include gouting (abnormal cell growth resembling a gall) at the feeding site, loss of apical dominance, and the production of abnormal xylem ('redwood' or 'rotholtz'). In the 100+ years that BWA has been in North America, studies on its biology and interaction with host trees have been conducted in the Pacific Northwest, Canada, and the Southern Appalachians on multiple fir species of different ages, utilizing various sources of the adelgid. Three subspecies of BWA have been identified in North America (Foottit and Mackauer 1983). Our long-term objective is to develop BWA-resistant Fraser fir trees for the Christmas tree industry and native stand restoration. Our objective for this study was to screen for resistance across multiple fir species utilizing trees of equal age, grown under the same conditions and infested with BWA from the same source, and to observe the reactions of both host and insect.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".