Oviposition Response of Spruce Budworm (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) to Aliphatic Carboxylic Acids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the effects of carboxylic acids on the oviposition behavior of the spruce budworm, a major defoliator of coniferous forests in North America. Carboxylic acids have been implicated as semiochemicals involved in lepidopteran host finding and oviposition, and they occur as free acids in the epicuticular wax of host (Picea and Abies spp.) foliage where spruce budworm lay eggs. In a dual-choice laboratory bioassay, several straight chain and cyclic monocarboxylic acids, and two dicarboxylic acids, significantly enhanced oviposition. Peak activity was associated with saturated acids having 8–12 carbons. Unsaturated oleic and linoleic acids were also preferred. The lowest effective dosage occurred at 7.8 nmol/cm2 (1 mM solution). At higher dosages (≥780 nmol/cm2), C9–C10 acids became strongly deterrent and some shorter-chain and longer-chain acids became stimulating. Electroantennogram responses to C6–C16 acids indicated that behaviorally active acids are detected by olfaction. The most active acids (C8–C12 and oleic) have not been reported in the free fatty acid fraction of host cuticular waxes. However, long-chain C14–C28 acids are present as free acids, but they elicited significant oviposition responses only at doses that exceeded their levels in foliage waxes. Spruce budworm preference for carboxylic acids may represent a nonspecific response common to Lepidoptera, which may have evolved because of the ubiquitous occurrence of carboxylic acids in plants.
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".