Post‐gall induction performance of <i>Adelges Abietis</i> (L.) (Homoptera: Adelgidae) is influenced by clone, shoot length, and density of colonising gallicolae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. We evaluated the effect of clone (one susceptible and one resistant clone), shoot length, crown level, and gallicola density on post‐gall induction performance of Adelges abietis . Galls that had been successfully induced by one fundatrix on a range of shoot sizes were selected, and the number of gallicolae that could colonise the gall was manipulated. 2. Post‐induction gall development success was inversely related to shoot length and was higher on the susceptible clone than on the resistant clone. As gallicola density did not influence the proportion of galls that successfully completed development, reduced post‐induction gall development on large shoots was not likely to be result of an insufficient stimulus from gallicolae. 3. Clone was the only factor that significantly influenced gall volume and galls were larger on the susceptible clone than on the resistant clone. As gall volume did not increase when more gallicolae attempted to colonise a gall, competition within a gall increased. Gallicola survival was inversely related to the number of colonising gallicolae. Our results suggest that gall size may be limiting at natural densities. 4. Previous studies report positive relationships between gall induction success and fundatrix density, and between gall size and fundatrix density. As each fundatrix produces one egg mass of gallicolae, this study suggests that there may be a trade‐off between the successful induction of a large gall and subsequent survival of gallicolae. 5. In the present study, clone influenced all measures of post‐gall induction performance. Performance was always higher on the susceptible than on the resistant clone.
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 | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".