The life history of a gall‐inducing mite: summer phenology, predation and influence of gall morphology in a sugar maple canopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eriophyoid mites are among the most ubiquitous gall‐inducing arthropods, and are adapted species‐specifically to a broad diversity of plants, although their life histories remain poorly studied outside agricultural systems. We examined the seasonal phenology of a leaf‐galling eriophyid mite, the maple spindle gall mite Vasates aceriscrumena (MSGM), in naturally occurring stands of sugar maple Acer saccharum in south‐central Ontario in 2007 and 2008. Galls were first induced in spring (mid‐May) and were devoid of mites by late August. In the study region, MSGM appears to have at least two generations, with overwintering, deutogyne females that initiate galls in spring (mid‐May) after leaf flush, giving rise to a generation of protogyne (primary) females and a few morphologically similar males (<1 for every 10 females) and, subsequently, to a new generation of deutogyne females in mid‐July to early August. In July, some galls can be highly crowded, with 50–200 individuals per gall. In addition, a tarsonemid mite, Tarsonemus acerbilis , was found in approximately 40% of MSGM galls examined. As much as 95.4% of galls in 2007 and 97.4% in 2008 that contained tarsonemid larvae did not contain MSGM eggs (by contrast, only 2.3% of tarsonemid‐free galls contained no MSGM eggs), suggesting that these juveniles feed, at least opportunistically, on MSGM eggs. Gall ostiole morphology appeared to influence both MSGM and Tarsonemus densities within galls, with ‘open’ ostioles (versus ‘closed’) being much more susceptible to invasion by the tarsonemid. The latter is likely to be an important regulator of MSGM populations. We hypothesize that the two ostiole types are the result of selection pressures on the gall inducer, favouring closed gall entrances for increased protection, and possibly also on the host tree, favouring open galls to increase predator access.
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".