Changes in volatile terpene and diterpene resin acid composition of resistant and susceptible white spruce leaders exposed to simulated white pine weevil damage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Induced (traumatic) resin in white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) leaders resistant or susceptible to the white pine weevil (Pissodes strobi Peck) was analyzed for volatile terpenes and diterpene resin acids after simulated white pine weevil damage. Leaders from 331 trees were wounded just below the apical bud with a 1-mm diameter drill, coinciding with the natural time of weevil oviposition in the spring. Leaders were removed in the fall, and the bark and xylem from the upper and lower regions of the leader extracted and analyzed by gas chromatography. Unwounded trees had low amounts of resin in xylem compared with bark. In response to wounding, volatile terpenes and diterpene resin acids increased in the upper xylem (area of wounding), with resistant trees showing a greater increase than susceptible trees. Wounding caused monoterpenes in particular to decrease in the lower region of the leader (away from the drilled area) in greater amounts in susceptible trees than in resistant trees. In response to wounding, the proportion of monoterpene to resin acid increased in the upper and lower xylem of resistant trees, and slightly increased in the upper xylem of susceptible trees. Monoterpene-enriched resin is more fluid than constitutive resin, and probably flows more readily into oviposition cavities and larval mines, where it may kill immature weevils. Loss of resin components in the lower xylem suggested catabolism and transport of these materials to the site of wounding; however, energetic and regulatory data are necessary to confirm this hypothesis. This study provides a basis for measuring the ability of a tree to undergo traumatic resinosis that could be used to screen for resistance to white pine weevil.
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".