Seed cone traits and insect damage in <i>Tsuga canadensis</i> (Pinaceae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We measured seed cones of Tsuga canadensis (L.) Carrière, assessed seed potential (number of fertile scales × 2) and seed efficiency (number of filled seeds/seed potential), and estimated the impact of Eupithecia mutata Pearsall (Lepidoptera: Geometridae) and Megastigmus hoffmeyeri Walley (Hymenoptera: Torymidae) on seed production. Mean length, width, and volume of healthy cones varied little among sites from Ontario. Cones had about 28 scales; 13 were sterile. Seed potential and seed efficiency differed among sites, ranging from 25 to 31 ovules and 24% to 72%, respectively. The number of scales (both sterile and fertile) increased with cone volume, but the proportion of fertile scales was independent of cone size. The maximum proportion of cones infested by E. mutata was 21%. On average, each larva destroyed >90% of the filled seeds from each cone, thus from a practical perspective, the proportion of T. canadensis seeds destroyed per site was equivalent to the proportion of seed cones infested. The proportion of cones infested by M. hoffmeyeri ranged from 9% to 40%, but the proportion of seeds destroyed per site (range: 1.1%6.1%) was much lower than that of E. mutata. The maximum number of M. hoffmeyeri-infested seeds per cone was seven. To our knowledge, this is the first report documenting cone traits of T. canadensis and the impact of E. mutata and M. hoffmeyeri.
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) | 0.001 | 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".