Effects of symbiotic bacteria and tree chemistry on the growth and reproduction of bark beetle fungal symbionts
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bark beetles are associated with diverse assemblages of microorganisms, many of which affect their interactions with host plants and natural enemies. We tested how bacterial associates of three bark beetles with various types of host relationships affect growth and reproduction of their symbiotic fungi. Fungi were exposed to volatiles from bacteria in an arena that imposed physical separation but shared airspace. We also exposed fungi to vapors of the host compound, α-pinene, and to combinations of bacterial volatiles and α-pinene. Bacterial volatiles commonly stimulated growth of Leptographium procerum (W.B. Kendr.) M.J. Wingf. and Grosmannia clavigera (Rob.-Jeffr. & R.W. Davidson) Zipfel, Z.W. de Beer & Wingf., which are symbiotic fungi of Dendroctonus valens LeConte and Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins, respectively. They less commonly stimulated growth of Ophiostoma ips (Rumbold) Nannf., which is associated with Ips grandicollis Eichhoff. Some bacteria inhibited L. procerum, Ophiostoma montium (Rumbold) von Arx (another associate of D. ponderosae), and O. ips. Bacteria greatly stimulated spore production of symbionts of D. valens and D. ponderosae. α-Pinene strongly affected some of these relationships, causing amplification, reduction, or reversal of the interactions among the bacteria and fungi. Our results show that some bacteria associated with bark beetles directly affect fungal symbionts and interact with tree chemistry to affect fungal growth and sporulation. The strongest effects were induced by bacteria associated with beetles adapted to attacking living trees with vigorous defenses, and on fungal reproductive structures.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it