Biological performance of the white pine weevil in different host species and in two ecological regions of southern Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance of the white pine weevil (Pissodes strobi Peck) was studied on five different host species: Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.), white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss), red spruce (Picea rubens Sarg.), jack pine (Pinus banksiana Lamb.), and eastern white pine (Pinus strobus L.). Attacked terminal leaders were collected prior to adult emergence, within two different ecological regions of Quebec, the Outaouais and Appalaches regions. According to their natural range, jack pine was studied only in the Outaouais region and red spruce only in the Appalaches one. Weevil performance did not differ between regions but differed among host species. The number of eggs laid per leader was greatest on jack pine, white pine, and Norway spruce (279, 219, and 218 eggs per leader, respectively). Adults emerging from white pine were the heaviest (0.0104 g). The number of adults per leader was greater on Norway spruce and white pine (34 and 23 adults, respectively), and survival tended to be greater on Norway spruce and white spruce leaders (18 and 15%, respectively). Norway spruce had the longest leaders, and jack pine had the thickest ones. Leader dimensions were correlated with all variables of weevil performance, except insect survival, but these characteristics explain only a small part of the variation in weevil performance. Norway spruce and white pine can be considered favourable hosts for rapid population buildup according to the high number of emerging adults per attacked leader.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".