Feeding, oviposition and emergence of the white pine weevil (<i>Pissodes strobi</i> (Peck)) under a pioneer broad-leaved forest canopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The white pine weevil's (Pissodes strobi Peck) feeding, oviposition and emergence were studied in a 12-year-old (1998) white pine (Pinus strobus L.) progeny test established under a canopy of mature pioneer species in the Outaouais region (Notre-Dame-du-Laus, Québec, Canada). The basal area of the overstory centred on 63 white pines was used as an indicator of forest cover. With overstory basal area ranging from 0 to 16 m2/ha, some white pine weevil performance parameters such as feeding and oviposition were significantly correlated with forest cover. However, others like the number of pupal chambers, emergence holes, partial survival index (emergence holes/chip-cocoon punctures) and total survival index (oviposition punctures/emergence holes) were not. Results showed that with an increase of forest cover, tree height was not affected but tree bole diameter was reduced. No relation was observed between leader diameter and the number of oviposition punctures. Even under a canopy, natural enemies (Lonchaea corticis Taylor and hymenoptera parasitoids) were also noted to reduce larval and pupal white pine weevil populations. Key words: white pine weevil, white pine, undercover plantation, natural biological control, oviposition, feeding, emerging population, overstory basal area
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".