Poplar defense against insect herbivoresThis review is one of a selection of papers published in the Special Issue on Poplar Research in Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The availability of a poplar ( Populus trichocarpa Torr & A. Gray, black cottonwood) genome sequence is enabling new research approaches in angiosperm tree biology. Much of the recent genomics research in poplars has been on wood formation, growth and development, resistance to abiotic stress and pathogens, motivated, at least in part, by the fact that poplars provide an important system for large-scale, short-rotation plantation forestry in the Northern Hemisphere. To sustain productivity and ecosystem health of natural and planted poplar forests it is of critical importance to also develop a better understanding of the molecular mechanisms of defense and resistance of poplars against insect pests. Previous research has established a solid foundation of the chemical ecology of poplar defense against insects. This review summarizes some of the relevant literature on defense against insect herbivores in poplars with an emphasis on molecular, biochemical, and emerging genomic research in this important field within forest biotechnology and chemical ecology. Following a general introduction, we provide a brief overview of some of the most relevant insect pests of poplars; we then describe some of the general defense strategies of poplars along with selected examples of their activities. We conclude with a summary of emerging results and perspectives from recent advances in genomics research on poplar defense against insects.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".