Biological performance of the white pine weevil in relation to the anatomy of the resin canal system of four different host species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The anatomy of the resin canal system was observed on lateral branches of four host species of the white pine weevil (Pissodes strobi Peck) in relation to weevil performance. The host species studied were Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.), white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss), red spruce (Picea rubens Sarg.), and white pine (Pinus strobus L.). Survival, number, and mass of adult weevils were measured on attacked terminal leaders collected before adult emergence. One uppermost lateral branch was collected at the base of each attacked leader. Cross sections of these lateral branches were observed to measure the number, diameter, depth, and density of inner and outer resin canals. Nearly all resin canal measurements differed significantly among species, with white pine differing greatly from the other species with larger canals and lower canal density. Correlation analysis demonstrated that the anatomy of the resin canal system was principally related to adult mass, with the most important variable being the density of inner canals (r = 0.54). Trees characterized by low density of large inner resin canals, like white pine, seemed to favour mass gain in adult weevils. The present study suggests that a high density of inner resin canals constrains the insect to feed on canals early in larval development, which subsequently reduces weevil mass.
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) | 0.000 | 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".