Taste receptor activity and feeding behaviour reveal mechanisms of white spruce natural resistance to Eastern spruce budworm <i>Choristoneura fumiferana</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pattern of feeding of Eastern spruce budworm Choristoneura fumiferana (Clem.) (Lepidoptera, Tortricidae) is compared on foliage from white spruce Picea glauca (Moench) Voss. (Pinaceae) trees previously determined to be susceptible and resistant to defoliation by budworm. No differences are observed in electrophysiological responses from taste sensilla to aqueous extracts of the two foliage types, nor is there a preference for either extract type in a choice test. Acetone extracts from the two foliage types are both preferred to a control sucrose solution, although neither elicits a preference relative to the other. These results suggest that there is no difference in phagostimulatory power of internal leaf contents of the two foliage types. Longer‐term observation of feeding behaviour in a no‐choice situation shows no difference in meal duration, confirming the lack of difference in phagostimulatory power. However, on average, intermeal intervals are twice as long on the resistant foliage, leading to an overall lower food consumption during the assay. This result suggests an anti‐digestive or toxic effect of the resistant foliage that slows behaviour and limits food intake. Previous research has shown that waxes of the resistant foliage deter initiation of feeding by the spruce budworm and that this foliage contains higher levels of tannins and monoterpenes. The data suggest that the resistant foliage contains a post‐ingestive second line of defence against the spruce budworm.
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".