Differential impacts of the southern pine beetle, <i>Dendroctonus frontalis</i>, on <i>Pinus palustris</i> and <i>Pinus taeda</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patterns of host use by herbivore pests can have serious consequences for natural and managed ecosystems but are often poorly understood. Here, we provide the first quantification of large differential impacts of the southern pine beetle, Dendroctonus frontalis Zimmermann, on loblolly pine, Pinus taeda L., and longleaf pine, Pinus palustris P. Mill., and evaluate putative mechanisms for the disparity. Spatially extensive survey data from recent epidemics indicate that, per square kilometre, stands of loblolly versus longleaf pine in four forests (380–1273 km 2 ) sustained 3–18 times more local infestations and 3–116 times more tree mortality. Differences were not attributable to size or age structure of pine stands. Using pheromone-baited traps, we found no differences in the abundance of dispersing D. frontalis or its predator Thanasimus dubius Fabricius between loblolly and longleaf stands. Trapping triggered numerous attacks on trees, but the pine species did not differ in the probability of attack initiation or in the surface area of bark attacked by growing aggregations. We found no evidence for postaggregation mechanisms of discrimination or differential success on the two hosts, suggesting that early colonizers discriminate between host species before a pheromone plume is present.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".