Terpenoid Resin Distribution in Conifer Needles with Implications for Red Tree Vole, <em>Arborimus longicaudus</em>, Foraging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tree voles are dietary specialists, feeding almost exclusively on conifer needles and bark. They reduce their exposure to conifer chemical defenses by physically removing resin ducts from many needles before ingesting the remaining tissue. The portion of needle removed differs among tree species, depending on the location of the resin ducts. To evaluate the amount of resin avoided by this behavior we removed the resin ducts from Douglas-fir, Western Hemlock, and Sitka Spruce needles and used gas chromatography to compare volatile resin concentrations in needles with and without the resin ducts removed. Needle tissues without resin ducts contained no terpenoid resin, demonstrating that tree voles can regulate the nutritional quality of their diet by controlling the amount of resin ingested. We suggest that differences in the physical structure (and possibly chemical composition of terpenes) of the needles make it difficult for voles to easily switch between tree hosts.
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".