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