MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033908496 · doi:10.1139/x03-047

A comparison of mycangial and phoretic fungi of individual mountain pine beetles

2003· article· en· W2033908496 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Diana L. Six

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOphiostomaDendroctonusMountain pine beetleBiologyFungusBotanyBark beetleEcologyTwig

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two ophiostomatoid fungi, Ophiostoma clavigerum (Robinson-Jeffrey & Davidson) Harrington and Ophiostoma montium (Rumbold) von Arx, are known to be associated with the mycangia of the mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins. However, virtually nothing is known regarding the phoretic fungi carried on the external surface of the exoskeleton of this beetle. In this study, I compared the phoretic fungi of individual D. ponderosae with the fungi carried in their mycangia. As many beetles carried ophiostomatoid fungi on the exoskeleton as in the mycangia; however, the species of ophiostomatoid fungus carried phoretically on an individual beetle was not always the same as was carried in its mycangia. Ophiostoma montium was isolated more often from exoskeletal surfaces than from mycangia, while the reverse was true for O. clavigerum. It appears that O. clavigerum is highly adapted for mycangial dissemination, while O. montium is adapted to phoretic as well as mycangial dissemination. Ophiostoma ips (Rumbold) Nannf. was phoretic on two beetles, indicating that cross-contamination with fungi from cohabiting Ips spp. may sometimes occur. Several non-ophiostomatoid fungi were isolated from exoskeletal surfaces, but none consistently so. All non-ophiostomatoid fungi isolated were common saprophytes often found in beetle-killed trees. Yeasts were also common and were isolated more often from the exoskeleton than from mycangia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations100
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207