Bark beetles and fungal associates colonizing white spruce in the Great Lakes region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the major bark beetles and associated fungi colonizing subcortical tissues of white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) in the Great Lakes region. Trees were felled at one northwestern Wisconsin site in a preliminary study in 1997 and at 10 sites throughout northern Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan in 1998. Fungal isolations were made from beetles colonizing felled trees, beetles that emerged from felled trees, tissue of colonized trees, and tissue of uncolonized trees. Dryocoetes affaber (Mannerheim) and Polygraphus rufipennis (Kirby) accounted for over 90% of the insects that emerged from logs. Time of colonization had a significant effect on abundance and composition of emerging insects. New records include Dendroctonus rufipennis (Kirby) in Wisconsin and two Michigan counties and Crypturgus borealis (Swaine) in Wisconsin and Minnesota and one Michigan county. Five fungal species from two genera were isolated both from beetles and colonized tree tissue. None were isolated from uncolonized trees. Ten new beetlefungal associations were identified. The association of specific fungi with specific bark beetles, both as they colonize and emerge from hosts and the isolation of these fungi from subcortical tissues of colonized but not uncolonized trees, is consistent with vector relationships. We compare our results with bark beetle fungal associations reported elsewhere in spruce and suggest possible mechanisms constraining population growth by Dendroctonus rufipennis in the Great Lakes region.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".