Influence of epicuticular-wax composition on the feeding pattern of a phytophagous insect: implications for host resistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A white spruce,Picea glauca(Moench) Voss (Pinaceae), plantation in southern Quebec was found to contain two distinct types of trees, the first resistant and the second susceptible to attack by spruce budworm,Choristoneura fumiferana(Clemens) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). To identify the mechanisms of white spruce resistance to spruce budworm, we studied the role of epicuticular waxes, comparing (i) the foliar chemistry of susceptible and resistant trees and (ii) the feeding pattern of larvae at first contact with the foliage. Needles collected from resistant trees contained concentrations of the monoterpenes α-pinene and myrcene that were 307% and 476%, respectively, above those found in needles collected from susceptible trees. Although there were no significant differences in probing behaviour, significantly fewer larvae transitioned from probing to feeding on resistant needles; this led to fewer feeding bouts as well as a significantly shorter first meal. Removal of waxes increased the number of individuals transitioning from probing to feeding on resistant needles; this led to more feeding bouts. Our results demonstrate that monoterpenes influence the pattern of feeding of spruce budworm larvae as well as playing an important role in white spruce resistance.
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".