Suitability of Some Southern and Western Pines as Hosts for the Pine Shoot Beetle, <I>Tomicus piniperda</I> (Coleoptera: Scolytidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pine shoot beetle, Tomicus piniperda (L.), is an exotic pest that has become established in North America. Discovered in Ohio in 1992, it has since been found in at least 13 states and parts of Canada. The beetle can cause significant growth loss in pines, and it represents a potential threat to trees in areas where it has not yet become established. To evaluate this threat to native pines, field and laboratory tests were conducted on several common and important southern and western species to determine whether they are acceptable hosts for T. piniperda. Comparisons with Pinus sylvestris L., Scots pine, a preferred natural host for the beetle, were made where possible. Measurements of beetle attack success on southern pine billets showed that Pinus taeda L., Pinus echinata Miller, Pinus elliottii var. elliottii Engelmann, Pinus palustris Miller, and Pinus virginiana Miller (loblolly, shortleaf, slash, longleaf, and Virginia pine, respectively) and two western pines, Pinus ponderosa Lawson and Pinus contorta Douglas (ponderosa and lodgepole pine, respectively), were acceptable for breeding material, but brood production was highly variable. Among the southern pines, P. taeda and P. echinata were susceptible to shoot feeding by T. piniperda, whereas P. elliottii was highly resistant and P. palustris seemed to be virtually immune. Shoot feeding tests on the western pines were conducted only in the laboratory, but there was moderate-to-good survival of adults feeding on both species. It seems that if T. piniperda is introduced into the south and west it will likely establish and may cause some damage to native pines. P. taeda may be affected more than other southern pines because it is the most abundant species, it is readily attacked for brood production, which can result in moderately large broods, and the beetle survives well during maturation feeding on P. taeda shoots.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".