Why does longleaf pine have low susceptibility to southern pine beetle?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pine forests throughout the world are subject to disturbance from tree-killing bark beetles, but pine species differ in their susceptibilities. In the southeastern United States, Pinus palustris Mill. suffers far less mortality from the southern pine beetle, Dendroctonus frontalis Zimmermann, than do its sympatric congeners. We tested the commonly invoked hypothesis that P. palustris has relatively low susceptibility because it has higher oleoresin flow than other pines, especially Pinus taeda L. However, seven studies in three states over 6 years refuted the hypothesis that P. palustris and P. taeda differ in their constitutive resin flow or in their capacity to replace resin depleted by either experimental wounding or natural beetle attacks. Additionally, surveys of natural beetle attacks revealed that P. taeda and P. palustris were equally likely to be attacked and killed when they cooccurred in front of growing infestations. Thus, the relative susceptibility of these two species changes with the spatial scale at which they are mixed, and the strong landscape-scale pattern of low mortality in P. palustris is not because individual trees are physiologically less susceptible. Ultimately, the conspicuous differential impact of D. frontalis on P. taeda and P. palustris may be the product of coevolution between tree defenses and beetle behavior.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".