Mountain pine beetle (<i>Dendroctonus ponderosae</i>) can produce its aggregation pheromone and complete brood development in naïve red pine (<i>Pinus resinosa</i>) under laboratory conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins; Coleoptera: Curculionidae, Scolytinae) has killed millions of hectares of lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Douglas ex Loudon) forest in western Canada, where it has recently established in the novel host jack pine (Pinus banksiana Lamb.) and threatens naïve red pine (Pinus resinosa Aiton) forests as the current outbreak expands eastward. It is therefore crucial to understand whether red pine is a suitable host for D. ponderosae. Host suitability was assessed by comparing the ability of beetles to produce pheromones and complete their development in red pine bolts inoculated with mating beetle pairs. We detected two of four primary pheromones, including trans-verbenol and verbenone, but not exo-brevicomin or frontalin. Beetle brood successfully developed in bolts, with reproductive parameters (e.g., female and larval galleries, pupal chamber, and number of broods emerged per mated pair of adults) that were similar to those reported from the beetle’s historical host lodgepole pine and the novel host jack pine. These results provide initial evidence that red pine is a suitable host for D. ponderosae. However, it is unclear how either low concentrations or an absence of exo-brevicomin, frontalin, and the synergistic monoterpene myrcene could affect host colonization and establishment of 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 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".