Constitutive defenses and damage in Sitka spruce progeny obtained from crosses between white pine weevil resistant and susceptible parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attack by the white pine weevil has notably reduced Sitka spruce productivity in British Columbia (BC) (Canada) and western US. By the 1970s, the BC Ministry of Forests established provenance trials of Sitka spruce with the objective of detecting usable genetic resistance to weevil. These early trials reported significant weevil resistance and allowed the production of the first (F1) controlled-cross progeny generation with demonstrable weevil resistance (R) or susceptibility (S). This study reports results of the screening for weevil resistance and the levels of constitutive defenses of this F1 Sitka spruce progeny. Progeny from resistant parents (R × R progeny) sustained significantly fewer weevil attacks than progeny from susceptible parents (S × S progeny) or progeny with one resistant and one susceptible parent (R × S progeny). Individual and family heritability estimates of the weevil resistance were 0.5 and 0.9, respectively. Constitutive defenses, measured by resin canal and sclereid cell density in the cortex, were significantly higher in R × R progeny than in R × S or S × S progeny. We observed a negative correlation between the percentage of trees attacked in each cross and the average density of the resin canals or sclereid cells for each cross.
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 | 0.000 | 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".