MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086169709 · doi:10.4039/ent133343-3

Preference of <i>Tomicus piniperda</i> (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) parent adults and shoot-feeding progeny adults for three pine species

2001· article· en· W2086169709 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Nathan W. Siegert, Deborah G. McCullough

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Entomologist · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Resources Canada
KeywordsShootPinaceaeBiologyBroodRed pinePinus <genus>BotanyHost (biology)Pine barrensWoody plantHorticultureEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Host preference of the pine shoot beetle, Tomicus piniperda (L.), was investigated in two laboratory choice test studies using red pine ( Pinus resinosa Ait.) (Pinaceae), jack pine ( Pinus banksiana Lamb.), and Scotch pine ( Pinus sylvestris L.). Host preference of parent adult beetles was evaluated using freshly cut, similarly sized logs in a wind tunnel. Parent beetles colonized Scotch pine logs significantly more often when given a choice of Scotch pine and either red pine or jack pine logs, but did not show a preference when presented with red pine and jack pine logs. Host preference of progeny adults was tested in a laboratory bioassay using current-year pine shoots. Shoot-feeding progeny adults initiated tunnels in jack pine shoots significantly more often than in Scotch pine and red pine shoots, and preferred Scotch pine over red pine shoots. Shoots with diameters of 0.4–0.5 cm were attacked most frequently, regardless of species. Results suggest that the two North American pines are suitable hosts, but T . piniperda may be most likely to colonize Scotch pine, a European species. Efforts to detect or monitor T . piniperda populations in the Great Lakes and northeastern regions should focus on areas with abundant Scotch pine brood material. Progeny that emerge from brood material, however, may be as likely to shoot-feed in jack pine as in Scotch pine.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score0.875

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian EntomologistSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207