Tree‐mediated interactions between the jack pine budworm and a mountain pine beetle fungal associate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Coniferous trees deploy a combination of constitutive (pre‐existing) and induced (post‐invasion), structural and biochemical defences against invaders. Induced responses can also alter host suitability for other organisms sharing the same host, which may result in indirect, plant‐mediated interactions between different species of attacking organisms. 2. Current range and host expansion of the mountain pine beetle ( Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins; MPB) from lodgepole pine‐dominated forests to the jack pine‐dominated boreal forests provides a unique opportunity to investigate whether the colonisation of jack pine ( Pinus banksiana Lamb.) by MPB will be affected by induced responses of jack pine to a native herbaceous insect species: the jack pine budworm ( Choristoneura pinus pinus Freeman; JPBW). 3. We simulated MPB attacks with one of its fungal associates, Grosmannia clavigera Robinson‐Jeffrey & Davidson, and tested induction of either herbivory by JPBW or inoculation with the fungus followed by a challenge treatment with the other organism on jack pine seedlings and measured and compared monoterpene responses in needles. 4. There was clear evidence of an increase in jack pine resistance to G. clavigera with previous herbivory, indicated by smaller lesions in response to fungal inoculations. In contrast, although needle monoterpenes greatly increased after G. clavigera inoculation and continued to increase during the herbivory challenge, JPBW growth was not affected, but JPBW increased the feeding rate to possibly compensate for altered host quality. 5. Jack pine responses varied greatly and depended on whether seedlings were treated with single or multiple organisms, and their order of damage.
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".