Host range, attack dynamics, and impact of <i>Cryptorhynchus lapathi</i> (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) on <i>Salix</i> (Salicaceae) spp.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The poplar and willow borer, Cryptorhynchus lapathi (L.), known to be present in British Columbia since 1923, primarily attacks species of Salix L. (Salicaceae) and Populus L. (Salicaceae). Larvae bore into stems, causing them to break easily. The impact of the weevil has been rising in recent years because of the increasing importance of poplar and willow from both economic and ecological perspectives. We conducted a study at 45 locations in British Columbia to determine host use among native Salix spp. and the between- and within-tree dynamics of C. lapathi. There were 11 new host records, but the incidence of attack was similar among species. Attacked trees were larger in general and had more dead wood and stems, more adventitious branches per stem, more total breaks per stem, and more naturally caused breaks per stem than their attack-free neighbours. Breaks caused by C. lapathi tended to be slightly larger in diameter and lower on the stem than naturally caused breaks. Bases of stems were preferentially attacked, and C. lapathi selected large stems in which to oviposit. As large attack-free trees become less abundant, weevils apparently start to attack small-diameter stems. Although C. lapathi is adversely affecting the health of willows in British Columbia, there is no evidence that any Salix species is threatened by weevil-caused extinction.
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".