MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138302325 · doi:10.4039/tce.2014.22

Effect of natal and colonised host species on female host acceptance and male joining behaviour of the mountain pine beetle (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) using pine and spruce

2014· article· en· W2138302325 on OpenAlexaffabout
Fraser R. McKee, Dezene P.W. Huber, B. Staffan Lindgren, Robert S. Hodgkinson, Brian H. Aukema

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Entomologist · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest ServiceMinistry of ForestsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
FundersJohns Hopkins UniversityKimberly-Clark
KeywordsMountain pine beetlePinus contortaDendroctonusPicea engelmanniiCurculionidaeBiologyPinaceaeHost (biology)EcologySilviculturePopulationBark beetleBotanyPinus <genus>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), outbreak in British Columbia and Alberta, Canada, currently extends over 18.3 million ha of pine forest. The principal host of the insect is lodgepole pine, Pinus contorta var. latifolia Englemann (Pineaceae) although it is a generalist herbivore on pines. Mountain pine beetles do not typically colonise spruce. However, during the current outbreak, several instances of mountain pine beetle attack on interior hybrid spruce, Picea glauca (Moench) Voss× Picea engelmannii Parry ex. Engelmann (Pinaceae) have been noted in areas where severe lodgepole pine mortality has occurred. Occasionally, beetle reproduction within spruce has been successful. Reproductive behaviours of mountain pine beetles reared from pine and spruce, such as female host acceptance and male joining behaviour, were studied on bolts of pine and spruce in laboratory bioassays. Females more readily accepted spruce host material relative to pine. Females that developed in spruce had higher rates of host acceptance of both pine and spruce host material than females that had developed in pine. We interpret these latter results with caution, however, as inference is partially restricted by sourcing viable insects from one spruce in this study. Implications of these findings to the concepts of host adaptation and population dynamics of this eruptive herbivore are discussed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.210
Threshold uncertainty score0.951

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian EntomologistSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207