Successful colonization, reproduction, and new generation emergence in live interior hybrid spruce <i>Picea engelmannii</i> × <i>glauca</i> by mountain pine beetle <i>Dendroctonus ponderosae</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract 1 Although mountain pine beetle Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins are able to utilize most available Pinus spp. as hosts, successful colonization and reproduction in other hosts within the Pinaceae is rare. 2 We observed successful reproduction of mountain pine beetle and emergence of new generation adults from interior hybrid spruce Picea engelmannii × glauca and compared a number of parameters related to colonization and reproductive success in spruce with nearby lodgepole pine Pinus contorta infested by mountain pine beetle. 3 The results obtained indicate that reduced competition in spruce allowed mountain pine beetle parents that survived the colonization process to produce more offspring per pair than in more heavily‐infested nearby pine. 4 We also conducted an experiment in which 20 spruce and 20 lodgepole pines were baited with the aggregation pheromone of mountain pine beetle. Nineteen pines (95%) and eight spruce (40%) were attacked by mountain pine beetle, with eight (40%) and three (15%) mass‐attacked, respectively. 5 Successful attacks on nonhost trees during extreme epidemics may be one mechanism by which host shifts and subsequent speciation events have occurred in Dendroctonus spp. bark beetles.
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".