Nutritional attributes of ash (Fraxinus spp.) outer bark and phloem and their relationships to resistance against the emerald ash borer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire, EAB) is an alien, invasive wood-boring insect that is responsible for killing millions of ash trees since its discovery in North America in 2002. All North American ash species (Fraxinus spp.) that EAB has encountered have shown various degrees of susceptibility, while Manchurian ash (Fraxinus mandshurica Ruprecht), which shares a co-evolutionary history with this insect, is resistant. Recent studies have looked into constitutive resistance mechanisms in Manchurian ash, concentrating on the secondary phloem, which is the feeding substrate for the insect. In addition to specialized metabolism and defense-related components, primary metabolites and nutritional summaries can also be important to understand the feeding behavior of insect herbivores. Here, we have compared the nutritional characteristics (water content, total protein, free amino acids, total soluble sugars and starch, percent carbon and nitrogen, and macro- and micronutrients) of outer bark and phloem from black, green, white and Manchurian ash to determine their relevance to resistance or susceptibility to EAB. Water content and concentrations of Al, Ba, Cu, Fe, K, Li, tryptophan and an unknown compound were found to separate black and Manchurian ash from green and white ash in a principal component analysis (PCA), confirming their phylogenetic placements into two distinct clades. The traits that distinguished Manchurian ash from black ash in the PCA were water content and concentrations of total soluble sugars, histidine, lysine, methionine, ornithine, proline, sarcosine, tyramine, tyrosol, Al, Fe, K, Na, V and an unknown compound. However, only proline, tyramine and tyrosol were significantly different, and higher, in Manchurian ash than in black ash.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".