Variable responses of folivorous sawflies to leaf quality of mountain birch
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied whether the larval performance of four sawfly species feeding on mountain birch (Betula pubescens subsp. czerepanovii (Orlova) Hämet-Ahti) leaves at different times of the growing season was related to the same chemical and physical leaf traits. In the three phenologically earliest species, larval growth was related to the same set of leaf traits. In contrast, consumption of leaf material was related to different leaf traits in all of the four species. Leaf suitability for herbivore growth and tree resistance to herbivore consumption were thus not always determined by the same leaf traits. Leaf water content and toughness had the strongest associations with larval performance. Phenolics, which are often considered the main resistance compounds in deciduous trees, explained only a small part of the variance in leaf consumption, but some groups of phenolics were negatively related to larval growth. In conclusion, the same mountain birch trees were not resistant to all of the studied sawflies in terms of leaf consumption, but low leaf suitability, which was related to the same set of leaf traits in the case of three sawfly species, may serve birch resistance, e.g., by exposing larvae to natural enemies for a longer period.
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".