Contrasting response of mountain birch to damage by <i>Eriocrania</i> leafminers in polluted and unpolluted habitats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The leafmining larvae of Eriocrania spp. (Lepidoptera, Eriocraniidae) develop in the expanding leaves of mountain birch, Betula pubescens subsp. czerepanovii (Orlova) Hämet-Ahti. The larva usually consumes over a half of the leaf, implying moderate foliar damage to an individual shoot. I demonstrated that in unpolluted forests, effects of damage are restricted to the mined leaf, which grows smaller and demonstrates higher fluctuating asymmetry than intact leaves. In contrast, in heavily polluted industrial barrens, mining of the single leaf adversely affects the entire shoot; timing and expression of responses depend on shoot type. In infested short shoots, intact leaves grow smaller and more asymmetrical than leaves in control shoots, whereas infested long shoots demonstrated no current-year response; this difference suggests that long shoots are more competitive than short shoots and can acquire additional resources to compensate for herbivore damage. In contrast, in the next year after damage, no consequences of mining were detected in short shoots, whereas infested long shoots produced lower numbers of axillary long shoots than controls. The detected interactive effects of pollution and leaf damage most probably result from resource limitation in birches growing on low-nutritive toxic soils.Key words: Betula pubescens subsp. czerepanovii, foliar damage, fluctuating asymmetry, Kola peninsula, leaf size, shoot growth.
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".