Olfactory and feeding preferences of <i>Cryptorhynchus lapathi</i> among hosts and nonhosts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In British Columbia, native willows (Salix spp.) (Salicaceae) and, to a lesser extent, black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa Torr. & Gray) (Salicaceae) are frequently attacked by the poplar and willow borer, Cryptorhynchus lapathi (L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Red alder (Alnus rubra Bong.) (Betulaceae), trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.), and bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum Pursh) (Aceraceae) are not attacked. We studied olfaction and feeding preferences in the laboratory and feeding, oviposition, and emergence in the field. Female C. lapathi preferred Scouler's willow (Salix scouleriana Barratt ex Hook.) over all other species by olfaction, but males did not discriminate between Scouler's willow and black cottonwood or trembling aspen. All species elicited at least some attraction in no-choice situations. Willow was generally preferred for feeding, but black cottonwood and red alder were also acceptable, unlike trembling aspen or bigleaf maple. In field caging experiments, adult weevils emerged from willow, black cottonwood, and red alder. We conclude that olfaction and feeding preferences are sufficiently powerful to mediate the frequent attack observed on native willows, the intermediate levels of attack on cottonwood, and the absence of attack on red alder. Successful development on red alder suggests that C. lapathi could expand its host range to include this species.
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".