Progress and gaps in understanding mechanisms of ash tree resistance to emerald ash borer, a model for wood‐boring insects that kill angiosperms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We review the literature on host resistance of ash to emerald ash borer (EAB, Agrilus planipennis), an invasive species that causes widespread mortality of ash. Manchurian ash (Fraxinus mandshurica), which coevolved with EAB, is more resistant than evolutionarily naïve North American and European congeners. Manchurian ash was less preferred for adult feeding and oviposition than susceptible hosts, more resistant to larval feeding, had higher constitutive concentrations of bark lignans, coumarins, proline, tyramine and defensive proteins, and was characterized by faster oxidation of phenolics. Consistent with EAB being a secondary colonizer of coevolved hosts, drought stress decreased the resistance of Manchurian ash, but had no effect on constitutive bark phenolics, suggesting that they do not contribute to increased susceptibility in response to drought stress. The induced resistance of North American species to EAB in response to the exogenous application of methyl jasmonate was associated with increased bark concentrations of verbascoside, lignin and/or trypsin inhibitors, which decreased larval survival and/or growth in bioassays. This finding suggests that these inherently susceptible species possess latent defenses that are not induced naturally by larval colonization, perhaps because they fail to recognize larval cues or respond quickly enough. Finally, we propose future research directions that would address some critical knowledge gaps.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".