A lagged, density‐dependent relationship between jack pine budworm <i>Choristoneura pinus pinus</i> and its host tree Pinus <i>banksiana</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. 1. Survival of newly emerged jack pine budworm Choristoneura pinus pinus is related to the density of available pollen cones (microsporangiate strobili) produced by its host tree, jack pine Pinus banksiana . 2. A 7‐year time series of observations from a plot network in Ontario, Canada, compared the propensity of jack pine to produce pollen cones, τ, on trees that were either defoliated or undisturbed by the jack pine budworm. 3. Non‐defoliated jack pine trees have a high propensity to produce pollen cones. More than one‐third of these trees produced pollen cones in every year of the series. Propensity varied significantly among plots and trees. Temporal patterns in propensity were also highly variable but within a plot propensity was often autocorrelated in time. 4. Defoliation by the jack pine budworm was associated with forest plots composed of the oldest and the largest trees and with the fewest trees per hectare. Within a plot, outbreaks lasted 3 or 4 years although individual trees were only defoliated in 1 or 2 years. 5. The propensity to produce pollen cones in jack pine was reduced in the years after defoliation. The most pronounced reductions in propensity occurred where defoliation was most severe. 6. The reduction in propensity to produce pollen cones resulting from previous defoliation, coupled with the dependence of jack pine budworm survival on the availability of pollen cones, induces a lagged, negative feedback between the density of the consumer and that of its resource. 7. The lagged, density‐dependent relationship between jack pine budworm and its jack pine host contributes to oscillatory dynamics of the jack pine budworm. Comparison of the outbreak behaviour of jack pine budworm with that of the closely related eastern spruce budworm C. fumiferana suggests that differences in the strength of the host‐plant interaction may account for differences in the relative frequency of outbreaks in the respective systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".