Variation in Complex Semiochemical Signals Arising From Insects and Host Plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chemical communication by many insect species involves complex signals of both insect and plant origin. Much attention has been focused on the behavioral activities of these components but less on their sources of variation, despite implications for evolutionary theory and pest management. We studied variation in chemical signaling at host, tree-within-host, and beetle-on-tree scales using tunneling male pine engravers [Ips pini (Say)] on jack, Pinus banksiana Lamb, red, P. resinosa Aiton, and white, P. strobus L. pines. Pine engravers are distributed transcontinentally, and stereoisomeric ratios of their principal pheromone component ipsdienol varies regionally. Linear mixed-effects models were used to examine variation in monoterpene and pheromone volatile profiles, determined by gas chromatography. Phloem from white pine had the greatest concentration of monoterpenes, although insects tunneling in white pine produced the smallest ratios of monoterpenes to pheromones (1:2) in their volatile plumes relative to jack and red pine (1:1). Beetle-to-beetle variation in plume composition was approximately 2-9 times greater than the inter-tree variation within a tree species. The stereoisomeric ratio of ipsdienol was highly consistent within the pheromone component of the plume. The little variation present existed almost entirely at the level of the insects. Within the pheromone component of the plume in a given host species, there was up to 13 times more beetle-to-beetle than tree-to-tree variation. This magnitude was almost double the magnitudes of the ratios among components within the entire plumes. Implications to the behavioral ecology of bark beetle communication, such as potential strategies of cheating and predator avoidance, are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".