Effects of resin flow and monoterpene composition on susceptibility of lodgepole pine to attack by the Douglas‐fir pitch moth, <i>Synanthedon novaroensis</i> (Lep., Sesiidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resin flow differed significantly among three of six clones of lodgepole pine seed orchard trees, but did not differ among the clones categorized as susceptible or resistant to attack by the Douglas‐fir pitch moth. A stepwise regression analysis identified δ‐3‐carene, cyclohexene, and α‐terpinolene as significant compounds, explaining 49.9% of the variation in the number of attacks per tree. δ‐3‐Carene alone explained 41.8% of the variation in the regression, and analysis of variance showed that resistant clones consistently had high relative amounts (>17.9%) of this compound, whereas susceptible clones had low amounts (<10%). The significant effect by cyclohexene and α‐terpinolene in the stepwise regression appeared to be due to a correlation between α‐terpinolene and δ‐3‐carene in several clones, and that cyclohexene was only present in one clone, rather than any discernable biological relationship. Limonene co‐eluted with β‐phellandrene, so its role must be determined by additional study.
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".