Biochemical assays for identifying seeds of lodgepole pine and other conifers fed on by <i>Leptoglossus occidentalis</i> Heidemann (Hemiptera: Coreidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radiography is a valuable tool for assessing quality of conifer seeds, but it cannot differentiate between aborted seeds and seeds that have been emptied by western conifer seed bug (Leptoglossus occidentalis Heidemann) feeding. We tested three biochemical marker-based assays that were developed to identify L. occidentalis damage to seeds of Douglas-fir, Pseudostuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco, for their use in lodgepole pine, Pinus contorta var. latifolia Engelmann. The three assays included measurement of storage protein reserve depletion, immunodetection of fragments of insoluble (crystalloid) storage proteins, and immunodetection of L. occidentalis salivary proteins. Aborted seeds contained significantly less soluble and insoluble protein than seeds that were fed on by L. occidentalis. Polyclonal antibodies raised against 11S globulin crystalloid proteins or L. occidentalis salivary gland extracts only immunoreacted with proteins in seeds exposed to L. occidentalis feeding. In a single-blind test, antibody raised against salivary-gland extracts correctly distinguished between undamaged full seeds, unfilled aborted seeds, and seeds fed on by L. occidentalis. Immunodetection of L. occidentalis salivary proteins was also performed on seeds of Abies amabilis Dougl. ex J. Forbes, Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg., Picea sitchensis Bong (Carr.), Pinus ponderosa Lawson, and Pinus monticola Dougl. ex D. Don. For all species, immunoreactive polypeptides were only detected in seeds fed on by L. occidentalis. These biochemical marker-based techniques could help researchers and seed orchard managers estimate seed losses caused by L. occidentalis in commercial seed orchards and natural forest stands.Key words: Leptoglossus occidentalis, saliva, biochemical markers, polyclonal antibody, immunodetection, Pinus contorta.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".