Preference of an exotic wood borer for stressed trees is more attributable to pre‐alighting than post‐alighting behaviour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Different mechanisms mediate host selection by insects before (pre‐alighting) versus after (post‐alighting) landing on potential hosts, but few studies distinguish pre‐ and post‐alighting behaviour, particularly for wood borers. This study evaluates pre‐ and post‐alighting host selection by Tetropium fuscum ( F .) ( C oleoptera: C erambycidae), a P alearctic wood borer that was recently introduced to H alifax, N ova Scotia. We evaluate whether T. fuscum select stressed (i.e. girdled) over healthy red spruce, Picea rubens S arg. ( P inaceae), trees for oviposition, as predicted by the preference–performance hypothesis (PPH). The landing rates of the native congener, Tetropium cinnamopterum K irby ( C oleoptera: C erambycidae), and parasitoids of Tetropium spp. were also quantified. Tetropium fuscum consistently preferred girdled over healthy trees. Adults landed more than 10 times more frequently (11.0 ± 1.5 versus 0.6 ± 0.2 adults per tree), and females laid more than 3 times as many eggs (130 ± 23 versus 38 ± 13 eggs per bolt), on girdled compared with healthy trees. As T. fuscum survival and rate of development is greater on girdled than on healthy trees, these results support the PPH. Tetropium fuscum rarely made maladaptive choices pre‐alighting, but post‐alighting oviposition on hosts on which performance is relatively lower was more common. Selection of high‐quality (e.g. girdled) hosts by female T. fuscum is therefore more attributable to pre‐alighting than post‐alighting behaviour.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".