Foliar nutrients explain goldspotted oak borer,<i><scp>A</scp>grilus auroguttatus</i>, adult feeding preference among four<scp>C</scp>alifornia oak species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Adults of the invasive goldspotted oak borer,Agrilus auroguttatusSchaeffer (Coleoptera:Buprestidae), consumed foliar weight in no‐choice feeding tests of, in descending order,California black oakQuercus kelloggiiNewb.,Engelmann oak,Quercus engelmanniiGreene, coast live oak,Quercus agrifoliaNée, and canyon live oak,Quercus chrysolepisLiebm. (Fagaceae). Furthermore, significantly more foliar area was consumed ofQ. kelloggiithan ofQ. chrysolepis. In dual‐choice feeding tests with isolated leaf disks,A. auroguttatusconsumed significantly more foliar weight and area ofQ. kelloggiirelative to the other three oak species, and more foliar weight ofQ. agrifoliathan ofQ. chrysolepis. In dual‐choice feeding tests with leaves on small branches,A. auroguttatusconsumed more foliar weight ofQ. kelloggiithan ofQ. engelmanniiandQ. agrifolia. Thus, multiple experiments suggested that adults ofA. auroguttatuspreferred the foliage ofQ. kelloggiiover that of the other three oak species, and among the other three species they did not appear to have a strong feeding preference. Factor analysis reduced the quantities of 13 foliar nutrients into two new variables (factor 1 and factor 2). Factor 1 was weighted heavily on the quantities of nitrogen, sulfur, phosphorus, potassium, zinc, and copper, whereas factor 2 was weighted heavily on the quantities of zinc, iron, and aluminum. Factor 1 varied by oak species, withQ. kelloggiihaving a higher factor 1 nutrient content than the other three species. Factor 2 response was higher inQ. kelloggii,Q. agrifolia, andQ. engelmanniithan inQ. chrysolepis. The collective effects of four macronutrients (nitrogen, sulfur, phosphorus, and potassium) and two micronutrients (zinc and copper) suggest that these might be the nutrients directing preferential feeding ofA. auroguttatusadults on the foliage ofQ. kelloggii. Leaf toughness might also play an important role in feeding preference. FemaleA. auroguttatusdid not show an ovipositional preference among the four oak species.
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".